quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

The scenarios that are currently included with the game will not make use of this new code.  It takes a modded scenario to do it.  I believe the Don's Babies scenarios are being updated to support this.

Submarines have always clumped torpedo tubes together, like you will see in the editor torpedo, forward, X6.  Because of this, the game can't fire one torpedo, it needs to fire six at a time.  If there were separate lines in the editor for each of these six tubes with one torpedo each, then the game engine now has the ability to fire one to all six depending on the target.

It was decided that none of the official scenarios would be modified for this patch, so as to not impact games in progress and/or cause confusion whether it was safe to upgrade.  So the data to support the new code is not in the patch.  The mod community is free to update scenarios to support the new submarine torpedo layout and take advantage of the new code.

Hope this explains it some.  And I hope I remembered the details right... 

Bill

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Here is Don's post on the torpedo code workings - he wrote it - so I'd go with his details as being most relevant.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=2379909

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChickenOfTheSea

Here is the post from Osterhaut that apparently nobody read (despite the fact that it was the start of two threads). This post contains links. If you follow the first link it will take you to submarine tube modifications for all the stock campaign game scenarios. The new code you are referring to is gone, removed, and any discussion about is irrelevant and it never worked with any current mods anyway. This is mod material and it is not appropriate to badger Matrix about unofficial (non-Matrix) mods.

Except--again--the code IS in the final Patch 3 and the Patch 3 notes, bare of any other explanation, mod links, doesn't-work-with wording, or the rest. I'm unsure from context what you mean by "the new code you are referring to." I'm talking about the code which is in final Patch 3. If that's different than the code talked about, hinted at, stomped-off-in-a-huff-about on the mod sub-forum, as well as here, in the main forum, fine. I don't care about that code.

quote:

just fyi.
quote:

Patch-3 Beta is now available. There are a few things in it that are not listed because they apply to mod scenarios only, and because the capability will not be ported to the database of “official” scenarios.

Special code implements the submarine split-tube model, such that submarines will fire different numbers of torpedoes at different types of target ships; i.e., a sub may shoot 1 or 2 torpedoes at a merchie target, but flush all tubes at a CV.

Please note, this code does NOT affect the “official” database scenarios, they WILL act normally. This ONLY works with specially modified scenarios.

Again, cool, but this referred to beta code, in that time slice where an actual moderator posted that "undocumented features will be removed", which the average reader could conclude included the torpedo code. Again, fine. Then it shows up in the final patch with no extra help as to how to use it. Even Osterhaut's explanation presumes the reader has an understanding that AE is archetecturally made up of a free-standing database, and a code base that interacts with it. I sort of get that, but a newbie might not. To him it's just a game which launches when he clicks the shortcut.

quote:

If you play stock and wish to try this out, the sub-tube modifications, along with installation instructions, may be found here.
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2347573&mpage=1?

The latest Da Babes modification was specially adapted to utilize this, and other enhancements. Da Babes, along with installation instructions, may be found here.
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2373258&mpage=1?

And yet, I've been sent to JuanG's mods, even by Juan himself in PM, not Da Babes. My understanding of Da Babes is it does myriad things to the base game besides adding torpedo code. (I'm being intentionally dense to make my point about how opaque this can be to a newbie.)

The torpedo code, by being in Patch 3, becomes Official Martrix Policy, not a mod. Yet, it only works in mods not supported or officially recognized by Matrix. A weird situation IMO.

I'm not trying to pick a fight or be a jerk here, guys. I want all of this stuff to work, and work well. I want newbies and less-than-power-players to stay involved, tell their friends, and have Matrix sell a pant-load of copies. All so I can someday play WITP2 of course.[:)] If everyone else thinks things are hunky-dory, fine. I can shut up and play my game. I'm just asking questions here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

quote:

So if I understand correctly - this thread was started to ask a question about the changes to the torpedo code...which was answered by a developer and a moderator...but the intent was to use the Torpedo Code changes to illustrate a complaint about the structure of the Matrix Forum.

Except the quesiton wasn't answered, as I showed in another post.

quote:

I've been here from 2005...for as long as I remember if you have a question ask it and it generally gets answered by one of the forum members.

I've been here or lurking longer than that, and I agree with you. But that's not my point.

quote:

EDIT: In regards to the torpedo code changes- it is my understanding that they were inserted to support the Mod community. An AI player can take advantage of these changes by editing an AI scenario to incorporate the data changes necessary to utilize the code. However, this change will only affect newly started games that incorporate the Modded data and will not affect ongoing games..

And that's MY understnading too. Except, the patch notes don't say that. So far as I can tell there's no comprehensive place I can go to to find mods which do support it (and don't add the whole Da Babes shooting match, if I've ever even heard of Da Babes, which is a private, non-supported effort dontchaknow.) And I don't know how to edit an AI scenario either. So there. (Insert Bronx Cheer.)[:)]

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

Moose,

You make some good points. Some other things are important too. The biggest and most critical one is that the financial makeup of AE will not support the kind of customer service effort that you are getting at. There are not enough of us paying customers to pay for it. Flowing from that is the fact that 99% of the effort to produce AE was non-Matrix, and volunteer at that. In other words, the whole thing is an 'inside job' where the developers of AE have worked very hard both to produce AE and to welcome new folks. No, they are not perfect; they are quite human and get the human interaction thing wrong sometimes. So do the rest of us. But even in the mods you mentioned, that seek to make use of new features, they took pains to produce two versions (the first two versions available!) that are for AI players. They are not neglecting the newbies and AI players.

I roger all of your main points. My comments here are primarily directed at Erik, not the devs, who I understand were volunteers. Matrix made business decisions. They allowed or forced the devs to do Matrix's customer service job, for whatever reason. Instead of the devs being cradled and "protected"in their success and encouraged to re-charge for a run at a WITP2 (a dream), many have been run off while Matrix books the sales revenue. This is unfortunate to say the least.

I don't know how many units have been sold, and Erik will never say, nor should he. I've had interactions with him in other on-line locations, including Usenet, and have always found him to be reasonable, presenting well-thought-out positions. (If he wants to know who I am he can look at the forum logs; I use my real name on Usenet.) I'm simply suggesting that this event with the torpedo code should be a red flag that the AE business model might be eating at itself, and Matrix needs to step into the fray, decide where they want the fanchise to go if the devs really do exit stage right en masse, and how they're going to get there. Maybe this model works again, maybe it doesn't. I hope some model does, as I want to play WITP2 in my retirement.

Right now I'm less asking for wholesale re-staffing or over-staffing of the forums than a re-design to reflect where the game is and the type of players that are coming into the fold. Modding, especially small scenario modding, will keep this thing alive for years. But players need to be able to find them and understand them, without an IT degree. And if they play official scenarios, they need to be able to understand what they're getting and not getting.

quote:

Back on that human interaction thing, recently when a newby had trouble finding something in the manual in spite of looking, it was more than just Devs that responded. Some comments were helpful, some were disdainful. One poster (you) said he did a search for the answer and found it in 17 seconds, as though the newby would have needed to search for the answer text if he already knew it! Your later comments centered around "RTFM". Clearly some of the attitude that newbies run into is not coming from the AE team or from Matrix. The Devs are not perfect, the CS for AE is not perfect, but both the Devs and Matrix deserve praise for what they've accomplished with what they have - including support of newbies.

That individual wasn't a newbie; he had what, sixty pages of notes or something? I only responded when he (or someone, I didn't re-research this)categorically stated that the 20k rule was not in the manual. I'd think a PE/MBA with sixty pages of notes could do a PDF search; that was the basis of my response. I also tried to lighten the response with a later post. Overall, I was defending the writers of the manual, which is among the best I have ever seen in a computer gqming career going back to 1978.

OTOH, IF there were a newbie sub-forum, and players were invited in to help, I would never respond that way there. I try to help newbies in the general forum when I can, either through having knowledge or time to spare. Many of the old hands do the same. But it's structurally inefficient is all I'm saying. If there were a newbie safe zone where NO ONE could ever say "RTFM", and this was moderator-enforced, everyone would benefit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

EDIT: In regards to the torpedo code changes- it is my understanding that they were inserted to support the Mod community. An AI player can take advantage of these changes by editing an AI scenario to incorporate the data changes necessary to utilize the code. However, this change will only affect newly started games that incorporate the Modded data and will not affect ongoing games..

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

So when an experienced player looks and can't find something, it's OK to say "RTFM", yet demand certain levels of customer service and peer forum help otherwise? We just disagree on that.

It's OK to disagree. And I will also say that response was not my finest hour.

quote:

I agree that the torpedo code, and whatever else, should be documented. It has been, but, as you rightly point out (indirectly), that should be consolidated. Here, we are running into the realities of the AE situation - the volunteer effort. How many wargames out there bother to update their manuals when they issue patches that include new features? AFAIK, none, even though that would be ideal.

No way I'm expecting the manual to be updated, even in PDF. I'm suggesting a re-ordering of the forum would help a lot, and also that things like patch notes be less cryptic and "insiderish" when the change doesn't work with offical, Matrix-supported scenarios.

quote:

Should the official scenarios be updated to take advantage of the improved code? Yes, of course. Doing that still takes labor - to do it, test it, etc. Back to the same problem. As I understand it, any retooling of the stock scenarios is a big hairy deal that can also screw up ongoing games if done badly.

I'd love for the official scenarios to incorporate this code. I don't think there's any dispute that it reflects historical tactical realities and practices, and makes the game better. But, if that's too hard, maybe there's an interim step where one of the mods which incorporates it could be "adopted into the family" semi-officially (there may be IP legal issues) and clear, simple instructions provided to the AI-only player about how they can be run, and how the AI scripts talk to that new code, or don't, as the case may be. As I said in a response to Treespider, the interactions between AI scripts and the DB/gamecode is something I'm very fuzzy on, and the basis for me not having the confidence to venture into some of the mods. They aren't all overtly clear if they're only for PBEM, and many/most of the power-players designing them tend to look down their noses at AI players.

quote:

I think separating new people into their own area would be a big mistake. That would really foster division in the community.

We can agree to disagree on this.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

I know you can't change DB fields in an on-going game (right?)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

Since I am one of the primary perpetrators, it feel it incumbent on me to respond.

First, I wish to be expressly and implicitly clear: THIS HAS NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER, AMEN, on the existing database, or existing games. They will play exactly and precisely (with respect to sub tubes) as they always have.

Several months ago it was noticed by modders that rearranging a sub’s torpedo devices, from 1 device of 4 to 6 tubes, into 2 to 3 devices of 2 tubes each had a benefit with respect to time on station, and sub ammo consumption. This was implemented by certain modders through extensive modifications of the database. There was NO CODE involved. Because the modifications were so extensive, and the game-play outcomes were so indeterminate, it was, correctly, decided that these database changes would not be incorporated into the stock scenarios, unless and until massive testing was done.

This database modification was discussed openly in several threads on the mod sub-forum, and was included in several mods – all without code. All the code does is determine whether a sub will shoot a 2-tube device at a target or the default 4-tube or 6-tube device. Obviously it does not pertain to a database that has default tubes. All stock databases have default tubes, so this is utterly irrelevant.

If anyone really cared, they might have gone to the mod sub-forum, at any time, and downloaded a class and ship file that could be used with the stock scenarios to implement the split-tube system. It was even posted on the main forum that this was available. The code is very minor and was graciously allowed so that the over 150 people playing with the mods could provide the necessary massive testing and serious result data needed to determine whether this system would be appropriate for incorporation into the stock game paradigm.

This is not a huge deal for anybody. Anybody in the world could have, and still can, download the split-tube files and play with them and see what happens. All the code thing does is maybe add about 20% to the excitement (and efficiency) of a database mod that has been around for months.

What happened was that some of us got excited, and made mention of it. People who understood nothing of the reason, history or application, got all bent and complained. Just like now. So Joe decided to pull it to shut off the complaints. Joe was prevailed upon to leave it in because of the vast numbers of testers that could give a definitive yes-or-no answer as to its incorporation into the stock database. Unfortunately, the current complaints will likely cause it to be removed in any subsequent ‘hotfix’ or patch.

I hope this explains the whys and wherefores, and since it’s now likely to be killed, satisfies you. I think, given these circumstances, modders have learned to keep our mouths shut, so there will not likely be any more information on tweaks like this that might upset somebody.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

I'd love for the official scenarios to incorporate this code.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

And that is what makes developers throw their hands up in disgust.

You have likely killed it, so there is no longer anything to worry your head about. And we ain't likely to say anything about nothing ever again, just to keep ya'll happy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

I know you can't change DB fields in an on-going game (right?)

In AE you can. Try it for yourself: Use the editor to make a new scenario (just read in scenario 1 and save it to '50' or something). Play a turn or two. Then, edit the scenario and make a few changes. When you next load the save game it should ask you if you want to incorporate the changes 'Y/N'.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

And that is what makes developers throw their hands up in disgust.

You have likely killed it, so there is no longer anything to worry your head about. And we ain't likely to say anything about nothing ever again, just to keep ya'll happy.

And to that I say "Bite Me." If that gets ME banned, so be it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

I think it's time for a Group hug and a margaritta.