quote:

ORIGINAL: minnowguy

First, insulting the devs isn't going to help.  Nobody is making code changes on a whim.  Clearly there are aspects of the game engine that are less than perfect but overall it is a wonderful game and I, at least, have spent hundreds of enjoyable hours playing it. 

Second, given how many subs the allies have, it is difficult for me to get too worked up about Japanese airborne ASW being too effective.  Yeah, historically ASW (in all its forms) was not a Japanese strong point, but the current model, while not "historical", is at least plausible and it is a long way from a game-ruining problem.  The same logic applies to the relatively high effectiveness of the Japanese subs: not historical, but not implausible given some minor doctrine changes and not nearly significant enough to ruing the game for me.

I haven't seen the game engine code, but after years of playing the game and reading this forum I think I have a pretty good idea what it looks like.  [Note: I've been writing/fixing/swearing-at software for 30 years now.]  Working with less-than-ideally structured legacy code can be insanely frustrating.  If they had to do it all over again, I suspect (and hope) that the devs would implement the engine along with a solid suite of integration tests that would prevent annoying little systemic bugs like the ones that crop up occasionally (radar, search arcs, attack bombers, etc).  Unfortunately, adding comprehensive test coverage to a complex existing application is just insanely difficult and expensive.

I'm consistently amazed that the relatively small AE dev team managed to add so many great features to the older WITP code base without making the game completely unstable and unplayable.  I think many people don't realize just how difficult this is.  Kudos to the development team -- keep up the good work.

Now, about those search arcs ....   :)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Slightly off topic but I have always wondered if the ASW attack follow similar routines as naval attack.

Which also leads to a follow up question if DBs on ASW perform dive bombing attacks if set to the correct altitude. Personally I doubt it but
it is hard to be sure. Same for any plane that can glide bomb.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder

I sank those subs because I dedicated the resources to do it! Not because of some game inbalance... I bet I could do the same on the allied side.

quote:

ORIGINAL: minnowguy

First, insulting the devs isn't going to help.  Nobody is making code changes on a whim.  Clearly there are aspects of the game engine that are less than perfect but overall it is a wonderful game and I, at least, have spent hundreds of enjoyable hours playing it. 

I'm consistently amazed that the relatively small AE dev team managed to add so many great features to the older WITP code base without making the game completely unstable and unplayable.  I think many people don't realize just how difficult this is.  Kudos to the development team -- keep up the good work.

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

quote:

My suspicion falls on a kludge that some "genius" (Could it be the same one who mucked up the search arcs?) stuck in the code to "balance" the game to some friend's liking, making tactics - good or bad - illogical and meaningless.

I actually resent that, but I am not going to get into a discussion/argument about it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

quote:

My suspicion falls on a kludge that some "genius" (Could it be the same one who mucked up the search arcs?) stuck in the code to "balance" the game to some friend's liking, making tactics - good or bad - illogical and meaningless.

I actually resent that, but I am not going to get into a discussion/argument about it.

Actually, you shouldn't resent that, I should [:D] I'm the one who decided to tone down the effectiveness of ASW air, it was overpowerful previously, and a few have pointed out.

If the OP was saying that ASW air is too powerful, I'm surprised, since we did tone it down. But if the OP was saying it was not powerful enough, then against I'm surprised, since we did tone it down. But having read the OP, I'm not sure what is being said [:)].

But if people want to beat on someone about it - I would be their huckleberry [:)] not Michael - reducing detection of submarines by maritime reconnaissance missions was one of my inputs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

quote:

ORIGINAL: hjalmar99
My suspicion falls on a kludge that some "genius" (Could it be the same one who mucked up the search arcs?) stuck in the code to "balance" the game to some friend's liking, making tactics - good or bad - illogical and meaningless.

Your partially right. Don, Joe and Michael have to have genius qualities to interpret the code. The small portions i saw while helping work the ASW angle gave me a new appreciation. But thx for the kind words.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

quote:

My suspicion falls on a kludge that some "genius" (Could it be the same one who mucked up the search arcs?) stuck in the code to "balance" the game to some friend's liking, making tactics - good or bad - illogical and meaningless.

I actually resent that, but I am not going to get into a discussion/argument about it.

Actually, you shouldn't resent that, I should [:D] I'm the one who decided to tone down the effectiveness of ASW air, it was overpowerful previously, and a few have pointed out.

If the OP was saying that ASW air is too powerful, I'm surprised, since we did tone it down. But if the OP was saying it was not powerful enough, then against I'm surprised, since we did tone it down. But having read the OP, I'm not sure what is being said [:)].

But if people want to beat on someone about it - I would be their huckleberry [:)] not Michael - reducing detection of submarines by maritime reconnaissance missions was one of my inputs.