how to fix the naval game (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> WW2: Time of Wrath



Message

Michael the Pole -> how to fix the naval game (9/27/2009 2:08:03 PM)

It has been suggested by one of the programmers (in just about the only response from the design team to the need for some revision of the naval game,) that it might not be as easy as has been suggested to implement these repairs. My point was that it would be easier than the total reconstruction of the air unit rules implemented in the 1.60 patch, which while certainly being a welcome improvement of the game, was certainly not a fix to a major problem, but more in thne way of an addition of more icing to an already delicious cake. However, the layer of ground glass that is the naval game remains untouched. I propose in this thread to demonstrate how easy it would be to tweak the current naval rules and significantly improve the game.

1) Increase the amount of damage done by aircraft against shipping. The current situation where naval units can stay on station under continual air attack for literaly months has been exhaustively discussed in other threads. All it would take to fix this problem is to change the table so that a small air unit could cause, say, 1 to 5 hits/attack (weighted to more damage rather than less to account for the probability that a damaged ship would be sunk over the course of a week) and a large unit could cause significantly more hits. (I was never involved in the construction of this table, so I'm not familiar with the variables we're currently using.) As for convoys, the very simplest solution would be to simply count the number of airpoints tasked to antishipping missions and add them to the number of subs that we currently calculate in the anti-convoy formula. A far better solution, but which would require a slightly larger amount of programming is to put convoys on the map like we currently do with troop transports. This has the advantage of reducing the need for special events, and all the special rules we currently use to generalize convoys.

This is going to be the general trend of this thread -- don't make special one-off rules for the naval game! As much as possible, we should not make exceptions to paper over the inconsitancies and strategic falacies that bad rule making causes.

More suggestions to follow...



Michael the Pole -> RE: how to fix the naval game (9/27/2009 2:25:49 PM)

2) Move Oslo to the Baltic Sea This is an easily implemented fix that requires no new code. It would be both geographicaly and strategicly accurate, and would greatly simplify a German invasion of Norway.

3) Add a new Arctic Sea Zone (which would only be open for the months of May through September) and the proposed 4 nnw coastal sea zones. During the production of ToW I suggested and the design team quickly implemented the insertion of at least one new sea zone (North Cape) and it was implemented in less than a week without seeming to cause any disruption to the ongoing design process. I will grant that this will require a limited amount of coding, but it will also cure at least two major problems with the naval game -- the current ability of air units to find ships and strike them far out into inter-continental oceans, and the current ability of ships to escape air attack by moving from open ocean sea zones directly into ports.



Michael the Pole -> RE: how to fix the naval game (9/27/2009 2:41:42 PM)

4)Only allow the repair of a single level of damage per turn for naval units. This should be codable with a single line and wouldnt take more than ten minutes. It would solve a serious problem with the naval game, the instantanious repair of unlimited damage by simply applying money. It would be much more appropriate to limit repair to one level every four turns, but this might require 20 minutes of programming time and might cause problems in remembering which ship could buy another level of repair in what turn.

Additionally, we should move the repair segment into the movement phase. This would prohibit naval units from moving during a turn in which it was repaired. Again, this would require only a single line of code and couldnt require more than ten minutes.

5) Apply the same rules for tech levels to ships that we already use for all other units. This is a thirty minute fix as it wouldn't require any new coding (since its already in use for all other units!) but would only require the removal of code establishing the exception for naval units.

This would result in naval units being assigned a tech level when built (or at the begining of a scenario) which would remain with the unit unless refitted. Refitting would reduce the unit to its minimum strength level and it would be rebuilt at the new tech level using the repair rules. These changes would greatly improve the accuracy of the naval game, where currently, an improvement of tech level is instantly and magically applied to the players intire fleet.



cpdeyoung -> RE: how to fix the naval game (9/27/2009 2:53:35 PM)

Dear Michael,

I am only going to address one issue.

I am a computer programmer.

In my 30 years of programming I have never met an end user who had a clue how difficult a coding issue was.

You may be right, or you may be wrong, but you do not know.

Chuck



Michael the Pole -> RE: how to fix the naval game (9/27/2009 3:01:00 PM)

These 5 very simple tweaks would go a very far way to improving the naval game. I'm now going to suggest several other fixes that would require a little more coding and would improve the feel of the naval game. I'd assign them a lower priority, but they would be very similar to the changes that we spent at least a month on to change the air units in 1.60.

6) Differentiate between damage to hull and mechanical plant and damage to combat systems. This simple fix would add a lot of feel to the game.

Every time an attack causes damage, a die would be rolled to determine what kind of damage was caused. For normal air or sea attacks, a 1-4 would cause superstructure damage, a 5 or 6 would cause mechanical damage. For subs or destroyers, or aircraft primarily armed with torpedos the chances would be reversed.

Superstructure damage would be essentially unchanged, except we would include code that would reduce the attack strength of the unit by 1 for every level of damage.

Mechanical plant damage would reduce the movement allowance of the unit by 1 sea zone for each level of damage. This would result in the unit being dead in the water after suffering two mechanical damages. We could also include a line which would enable a level of mechanical damage to be removed in a turn where it suffered no further mechanical damage.



Michael the Pole -> RE: how to fix the naval game (9/27/2009 3:06:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: cpdeyoung

Dear Michael,

I am only going to address one issue.

I am a computer programmer.

In my 30 years of programming I have never met an end user who had a clue how difficult a coding issue was.

You may be right, or you may be wrong, but you do not know.

Chuck


Dear Chuck,
I'm the first person to admit that I don't know anything about coding. On the other hand, I've been designing and playing wargames for 35 years and I do know that changing a damage table is a matter of only seconds, and that any change is far easier than writing something new.

I also know that fixing something that's inherently broken should have a much higher priority than adding new bells and whistles or adding another layer of icing while leaving a level of broken glass.



bo -> RE: how to fix the naval game (9/27/2009 3:39:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael the Pole


quote:

ORIGINAL: cpdeyoung

Dear Michael,

I am only going to address one issue.

I am a computer programmer.

In my 30 years of programming I have never met an end user who had a clue how difficult a coding issue was.

You may be right, or you may be wrong, but you do not know.

Chuck


Dear Chuck,
I'm the first person to admit that I don't know anything about coding. On the other hand, I've been designing and playing wargames for 35 years and I do know that changing a damage table is a matter of only seconds, and that any change is far easier than writing something new.

I also know that fixing something that's inherently broken should have a much higher priority than adding new bells and whistles or adding another layer of icing while leaving a level of broken glass.

Dear Michael I agree with everything you say on the naval game I just wish you were as aggresive about the ground war when I spoke of building units, This is a land battle game not a naval game the naval part of this game should and does flow around the land combat, I just hope in the Pacific war game they reconstruct their thinking on the whole naval situation, Strategic Command did this and it came out pretty good but not great.

Bo



Michael the Pole -> RE: how to fix the naval game (9/28/2009 4:16:53 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bo

Dear Michael I agree with everything you say on the naval game I just wish you were as aggresive about the ground war when I spoke of building units, This is a land battle game not a naval game the naval part of this game should and does flow around the land combat, I just hope in the Pacific war game they reconstruct their thinking on the whole naval situation, Strategic Command did this and it came out pretty good but not great.

Bo

Bo, old compadre, believe me I fought quite a fight with the design team to try to get an SPI style production spiral. In fact thats where I was told to pipe down and realize that I had a really excellent logistics and training staff![8D] I don't win many of these battles, so I try to pick my battles with some care and also try to maintain my temper at a sub-molten metal level. (Notice that I was a good boy and swallowed my heart on my proposed revisions to the armistice/surrender issue.) As Anraz told me once after I had to apologize to the guys for pulling my scalping knife in another losing effort, he realized that charging blindly was in my blood and that it was a price people just had to pay for my very occassional good idea (not to mention my egrigous spelling!)

But that's the problem with instantanious repair of ALL units, not just ships. No matter how good my Staff is, no one can repair a ship or an air unit or a tank division in the week following it's unexpected damage!

So I agree with the great majority of your comments on your 3 week thread. But nomatter how good your ideas are, no matter how workeable your suggestions are, no matter how much the game may need to be fixed, the bottom line is that this is Wastelands game, and these guys are Poles, and they're going to do whatever the hell they want. Like most Poles, they strongly believe in their sense of personal honor, but appealing to that can be very risky sometimes, as it can also turn a friend into an enemy for life.

It's a shame that the a#%h&#e in the White House either didn't realize that when he betrayed Poland and the Czechs last week, or more likely, just didn't care. Of course, selling your smaller friends to the white slavers is a perfectly permissable way of life in Chicago.



Anraz -> RE: how to fix the naval game (9/28/2009 11:16:08 AM)

A few words as general developers` comment.

We monitor the discussions regarding any changes in ToW because it is natural subject of our interest to improve the game. Knowing the code of the game we can estimate with ease feasibility of them, I have to admit that almost all of them are interesting, a few are theoretically possible to implement, but also a few are defiantly outside a scope of ToW`s patch or even any game based on the engine as they fail feasibility test. This particular code has its own heritage (someone called it “a spaghetti monster”) which will always be of the same nature no matter how many posts a player would post ;) Chuck pointed out a valid point regarding end user knowledge about a code. Only a programmer who knows the code can say whether particular feature, change or tweak of anything what is hardcoded is easy to implement. End users opinions considering this matter are only assumptions.

For example now there are wishes to change air-naval interaction. Well... we did changed some values sometime ago, we did because there were a number of requests... Current request is opposite... and it has “SUBTLE” addition which would require much more then simple change of some values, changes in code which are connected with other parts of code which are also connected with other parts...

Anyway as I said once theoretically we could do anything for a patch..., but giving objective reasons (like the endless appetite for fixes, character of the niche, the way the game was spread around, time which is always running out and other common issues connected with running any business) we have to put accent on making new games to support ToW in future. The iron logic is simple: the more changes are in a patch the bigger delay with another release and in effect the bigger risk the other project will fail therefore ToW support would melt into thin air of unfulfilled wishes. So I want to say the before anyone start his own private crusade it is better to consider the big picture and long term effects, because the effects might be totally opposite to the desired ones. Also I think that knowing the time needed to make a game and size of the niche we are in, it would be a very good empathy and management exercise to put itself as imaginary CEO of a small gamedev firm and try to decide what to do to have recourses for development and hold a team as a one efficient body. Changing of profile of activity is forbidden in this game ;)




bo -> RE: how to fix the naval game (9/28/2009 3:08:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Anraz

A few words as general developers` comment.

We monitor the discussions regarding any changes in ToW because it is natural subject of our interest to improve the game. Knowing the code of the game we can estimate with ease feasibility of them, I have to admit that almost all of them are interesting, a few are theoretically possible to implement, but also a few are defiantly outside a scope of ToW`s patch or even any game based on the engine as they fail feasibility test. This particular code has its own heritage (someone called it “a spaghetti monster”) which will always be of the same nature no matter how many posts a player would post ;) Chuck pointed out a valid point regarding end user knowledge about a code. Only a programmer who knows the code can say whether particular feature, change or tweak of anything what is hardcoded is easy to implement. End users opinions considering this matter are only assumptions.

For example now there are wishes to change air-naval interaction. Well... we did changed some values sometime ago, we did because there were a number of requests... Current request is opposite... and it has “SUBTLE” addition which would require much more then simple change of some values, changes in code which are connected with other parts of code which are also connected with other parts...

Anyway as I said once theoretically we could do anything for a patch..., but giving objective reasons (like the endless appetite for fixes, character of the niche, the way the game was spread around, time which is always running out and other common issues connected with running any business) we have to put accent on making new games to support ToW in future. The iron logic is simple: the more changes are in a patch the bigger delay with another release and in effect the bigger risk the other project will fail therefore ToW support would melt into thin air of unfulfilled wishes. So I want to say the before anyone start his own private crusade it is better to consider the big picture and long term effects, because the effects might be totally opposite to the desired ones. Also I think that knowing the time needed to make a game and size of the niche we are in, it would be a very good empathy and management exercise to put itself as imaginary CEO of a small gamedev firm and try to decide what to do to have recourses for development and hold a team as a one efficient body. Changing of profile of activity is forbidden in this game ;)



What you say here Anraz makes a lot of sense from a company point of view, but our point of view is more important because without us the buyers of your game or games you will have no company. I think Michael paints a great picture of what the naval end of the game should be, I for one dont know if it can be implemented. My feelings are more on the land warfare, I will state again that your building and placement of units is totally wrong and you programmers and play testers should have known it from the start. Now if your people were reaching out to the instant gratification people then you did just fine. Again no major unit should or can be built out of its native country and then and only then can it be redeployed to a distant battlefield, and 20 divisions cannot be built in one weeks time and deployed hundreds and thousands of miles away in an instant. If you the company Anraz dont add some form of realism to your games in this area then I will suspect the same thing will occur in your Pacific game that you will expect us to buy to keep this small company in business. You may not have meant it this way but it sounded to me like a veiled threat, that you must move on implementing future ideas into future games and if you dont do that and you dont sell games then you cant support TOW now and in the future. As for Chuck's opinion I will assume he is right on we dont know about code thats why we pay you for a game because we cant do our own, if your company can implement some of the changes suggested without a lot of trouble then do it. Changing the name of a city or some ship does not cut it with me. If you were doing Quake 3 then you can do whatever you want because who knows whats up in space but war game players who read history books know right from wrong.

Bo



willgamer -> RE: how to fix the naval game (9/28/2009 4:17:52 PM)

@ Anraz,

Your post sounds alot like blame the customer first. [:(]

So before we get off on the wrong foot altogether, I'd like to assume the best and just relate some thoughts that may be helpful.

The big one: Please communicate more with your customers. Tell us when a suggestion is outside the scope of what you will consider for this game. Tell us what you are accepting for consideration. For example, what's already on the patch 7.0 list? It that the last planned patch?

Please don't assume your staff and Chuck are the only professional programmers in your audience. We all agree, and will stipulate, that hard coded changes difficult and hard to test for unexpected results. However, when table and data changes are requested, either quit using this excuse or at least tell us that although the request seems to just be a table change, it is not. For example, in this thread www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2250101, I suggested changes that appeared to be tables only, yet there was no response. If you're simply not accepting more input for this game, tell us!

Consider putting yourself in our shoes as well. You accepted a large change to the air game in the first patch. This perhaps led many to believe that you were open to changes of the scope. Not every customer is a beta tester who has insider information about what is in progress. Again, you are the only one who can inform us of how you are scoping the game.

Please know that your customers are really on your side and want you to succeed beyond your wildest imagination. If we are imperfect in our communications of suggestions to improve the game, we beg your forgiveness. But please don't become offended, quit responding factually to suggestions, and presume we only want to annoy you by whining for things we know you can't deliver. [8D]






AH4Ever -> RE: how to fix the naval game (9/28/2009 7:37:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: willgamer

Your post sounds alot like blame the customer first.



Bravo! Bravo! [sm=happy0065.gif] [sm=happy0065.gif]

3 cheers To you and Bo [sm=00000436.gif]



Anraz -> RE: how to fix the naval game (9/29/2009 8:20:02 AM)

After your reaction connected with facts I gave you I feel I have to remind English is only my second language and I know that sometime it may be perceived as a bit harsh, well I wish I knew it better. I really regret it. Anyway I tried to give you some facts and general knowledge about gamedev.

Regarding communication not mentioning Saturday and Sunday behind us, in previous weekend doomtrader has a couple of light days and limited access to internet, also Bleck had some. After several day of heavy work on 1.6 they just deserved it, don't they? Making general assumptions about poor communication with community based on very short period of time just is not fair, is it?

Also I'm sorry but from quite prosaic reasons it is extremely difficult to  comment every post and every suggestion. Obviously we try to read every post, but even though sometime something may slip unnoticed not mentioning about making wide comments to every suggestion.  Also many suggestion were already posted and commented in this part or forum or in former RtV section of the forum (in sum almost 10 000 posts in both sections).

Bo, you bought ToW lately, and it seems your are here for a very short period of time so I assume that you I should shed some light on a few facts form the past:

- we did several patches for previous game (RtV)
- every owner of RtV was gifted with ToW, yes it was a gift and I proud of it!
- 1.6 patch has more then 150 changes, tweaks, fixes an so in these days it is much more for free than in most chargeable addons or GOLD versions of games and a next patch is already announced
- please go to Tech section and based on post there estimate quality of our customer service


Giving those information pleas reconsider your opinion regarding issues I pointed out in previous post, especially whether we do take care about our customers...


Beside feasibility the other things I have to point out is that  some suggestion would change the game and maybe some people would love it more, but other would less and it  was discussed before and it was pointed out by some other gamers. Somehow we have to live it.

Also if we are to implement a new things we do it only rationally  after consideration, and if something is really easy to implement and takes only a few minutes and doesn`t require any consideration it is being implemented and added to a patch. I assure you we do act rationally.

Considering Mike he is a beta tester of ToW and had/has a lot of possibilities to communicate with us (he posts the same in development forum), but apparently he tries to force to his vision no matter of cost or feasibly. Also I a bit surprised when he writes a lot in public, especially commenting what was and what wasn`t discussed/done/etc in  the development forum because a beta tester is the latest person allowed to do it. Personally I like him, but the whole situation causes a lot of ambivalent feelings which some people by mistake may perceive as something else directed to everyone.




Severian -> RE: how to fix the naval game (9/29/2009 12:06:39 PM)

quote:

20 divisions cannot be built in one weeks time and deployed hundreds and thousands of miles away in an instant



Here your are some examples contrary to your words:

6th US Marine Division as tactical unit never saw US territory: continental or island. The division was formed on Guadalcanal. Many German units has been formed away from Reich in various European countries and even in Africa: for example 5. Leichte-Division in North Africa, 11 SS-Freiwilligen-Panzergrenadier-Division "Nordland" in Croatia,　22nd SS Volunteer Cavalry Division Maria Theresia in Hungary (as many other SS unts formed out side germnay). Also some Wehrmacht divisions were formed in former Czechoslovakia or France. Great number of smaller units has been formed in USSR e.i. 1st 'Sinegorskij' Cossak Regiment or Wachdienst Norwegen. Also British units like Jewish Brigade in Palestine or American "Flying Tigers" in Burma.

PP collecting is abstract process which can be imagined in many ways, inter alia as forming of units, therefore　the moment of deploying a unit　differs form building/forming a unit. Also strict restriction in case of this game would add micromanagement. 



bo -> RE: how to fix the naval game (9/29/2009 2:52:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Severian

quote:

20 divisions cannot be built in one weeks time and deployed hundreds and thousands of miles away in an instant



Here your are some examples contrary to your words:

6th US Marine Division as tactical unit never saw US territory: continental or island. The division was formed on Guadalcanal. Many German units has been formed away from Reich in various European countries and even in Africa: for example 5. Leichte-Division in North Africa, 11 SS-Freiwilligen-Panzergrenadier-Division "Nordland" in Croatia,　22nd SS Volunteer Cavalry Division Maria Theresia in Hungary (as many other SS unts formed out side germnay). Also some Wehrmacht divisions were formed in former Czechoslovakia or France. Great number of smaller units has been formed in USSR e.i. 1st 'Sinegorskij' Cossak Regiment or Wachdienst Norwegen. Also British units like Jewish Brigade in Palestine or American "Flying Tigers" in Burma.

PP collecting is abstract process which can be imagined in many ways, inter alia as forming of units, therefore　the moment of deploying a unit　differs form building/forming a unit. Also strict restriction in case of this game would add micromanagement. 

Hi Severian, I knew about these units and after I wrote the post I just knew someone would throw them into this arena. I understand this is a beer and pretzels game nothing more. This is not a bad thing it just means you push units around a map without to much thought involved, SC is a beer and pretzels game also with a much better naval game but the land game here is better than SC's due to the large number of units and a larger map and a better combat system. Very few of the units you mentioned were effective in WW2. To have a delay in building units and having them built in their own country is micro management?

Bo



bo -> RE: how to fix the naval game (9/29/2009 3:05:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Anraz

After your reaction connected with facts I gave you I feel I have to remind English is only my second language and I know that sometime it may be perceived as a bit harsh, well I wish I knew it better. I really regret it. Anyway I tried to give you some facts and general knowledge about gamedev.

Regarding communication not mentioning Saturday and Sunday behind us, in previous weekend doomtrader has a couple of light days and limited access to internet, also Bleck had some. After several day of heavy work on 1.6 they just deserved it, don't they? Making general assumptions about poor communication with community based on very short period of time just is not fair, is it?

Also I'm sorry but from quite prosaic reasons it is extremely difficult to  comment every post and every suggestion. Obviously we try to read every post, but even though sometime something may slip unnoticed not mentioning about making wide comments to every suggestion.  Also many suggestion were already posted and commented in this part or forum or in former RtV section of the forum (in sum almost 10 000 posts in both sections).

Bo, you bought ToW lately, and it seems your are here for a very short period of time so I assume that you I should shed some light on a few facts form the past:

- we did several patches for previous game (RtV)
- every owner of RtV was gifted with ToW, yes it was a gift and I proud of it!
- 1.6 patch has more then 150 changes, tweaks, fixes an so in these days it is much more for free than in most chargeable addons or GOLD versions of games and a next patch is already announced
- please go to Tech section and based on post there estimate quality of our customer service


Giving those information pleas reconsider your opinion regarding issues I pointed out in previous post, especially whether we do take care about our customers...


Beside feasibility the other things I have to point out is that  some suggestion would change the game and maybe some people would love it more, but other would less and it  was discussed before and it was pointed out by some other gamers. Somehow we have to live it.

Also if we are to implement a new things we do it only rationally  after consideration, and if something is really easy to implement and takes only a few minutes and doesn`t require any consideration it is being implemented and added to a patch. I assure you we do act rationally.

Considering Mike he is a beta tester of ToW and had/has a lot of possibilities to communicate with us (he posts the same in development forum), but apparently he tries to force to his vision no matter of cost or feasibly. Also I a bit surprised when he writes a lot in public, especially commenting what was and what wasn`t discussed/done/etc in  the development forum because a beta tester is the latest person allowed to do it. Personally I like him, but the whole situation causes a lot of ambivalent feelings which some people by mistake may perceive as something else directed to everyone.



Hi Anraz how are you, yes I have been playing TOW for 3 weeks, but I have been playing war games since Tatics was brougt out to gamers many years ago, as far as this game RTV and giving free upgrade to TOW your so proud of I heard it was because RTV was so bad you did this if I am wrong please correct me. Finally just answer this question point blank no hemming and hawing. Is there any possibility that your company will or will not change the building of units outside of the home country, and if I had been a playtester I would have insisted that that is the only corret way to go. Also how you conduct yourself with these forums will help me decide whether to invest anymore of my money with you for a Pacific game Pease just yes or no on building of units.

Bo



willgamer -> RE: how to fix the naval game (9/29/2009 4:52:21 PM)

@Anraz,

What I've learned is that you are a brilliant politician who could have a bright career in the Polish Parliament. [:D][:D][:D]

I've learned nothing specific about this game, but that's the way you want it; so be it...

No problems! Have a great day. [8D]



Anraz -> RE: how to fix the naval game (9/29/2009 9:33:23 PM)

quote:

What I've learned is that you are a brilliant politician who could have a bright career in the Polish Parliament. [:D][:D][:D]


Ufff so do you wish me so nasty future? [8|]

Great thanks, but I much rather prefer to stay sticked to gamedev [:D]



Bleck -> RE: how to fix the naval game (9/29/2009 11:14:11 PM)

quote:

Is there any possibility that your company will or will not change the building of units outside of the home country

Of course there is such possibility. Didn't we mention that this issue is discussed? The problem is that:
- may change AI so that it will start doing weird (from your point or view) things
- there are players that may complain about this change
- this restriction (if implemented only for human) is not necessary (you can simply make it your house rule)



bo -> RE: how to fix the naval game (9/29/2009 11:28:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bleck

quote:

Is there any possibility that your company will or will not change the building of units outside of the home country

Of course there is such possibility. Didn't we mention that this issue is discussed? The problem is that:
- may change AI so that it will start doing weird (from your point or view) things
- there are players that may complain about this change
- this restriction (if implemented only for human) is not necessary (you can simply make it your house rule)

Bleck forgive me I heard no such discussion. When was it discussed?

Bo



Tomokatu -> RE: how to fix the naval game (9/29/2009 11:39:57 PM)

quote:

Bleck forgive me I heard no such discussion. When was it discussed?
It would have been a developers' in-house discussion. They are the people who know how the software is put together, what works and what is likely to cause flow-on consequences in the rest of the game.

Don't expect to be privy to all their planning.



bo -> RE: how to fix the naval game (9/30/2009 12:10:40 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tomokatu

quote:

Bleck forgive me I heard no such discussion. When was it discussed?
It would have been a developers' in-house discussion. They are the people who know how the software is put together, what works and what is likely to cause flow-on consequences in the rest of the game.

Don't expect to be privy to all their planning.


Thank you Tom I misunderstood his meaning I thought it was in the posts sorry about that.

Bo



Tomokatu -> RE: how to fix the naval game (9/30/2009 12:19:41 AM)

quote:

Thank you Tom I misunderstood his meaning I thought it was in the posts sorry about that

S'OK![:)]



Michael the Pole -> RE: how to fix the naval game (10/9/2009 2:36:42 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: gwgardner

with these new reports it's much easier to determine the effectiveness of raider activities, for instance. I just sent out three uboats to three sea zones, got reports back that they destroyed 10 STPs overall this turn, and I lost one of the subs. Easy to see in this instance, at this tech level, that the uboat campaign isn't paying off. For the first time in this game I'm paying attention to the nuances of the naval game. Before these reports, I was just blowing the uboat war off.

ORIGINAL: gwgardner

I ignored the naval for the most part too, but no more. It is really a new dimension for the game.

Just imagine what it could be if Wastelands had invested some time in fixing the naval game in 1.60.

I fear that expecting that we're going to get any improvement from the still largely imaginary WiP is an exercise in futility. There is just too little similarity between the carrier war in the Pacific and the narrow seas naval war in the European Theatre.

I mourn for what could have been greatness.[:(]



Anraz -> RE: how to fix the naval game (10/9/2009 7:01:03 AM)

quote:

Just imagine what it could be if Wastelands had invested some time in fixing the naval game in 1.60.


Mike here we go again? Please Michael take it for granted  that we did everything what was possible in a given period of time. Multiple the time for 1.6 patch by 3 or 4 and then you could imagine your propositions implemented after at least half of year, after six or maybe more months of intensive work... Such long period of time is very good for... a new game.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.328125