RE: Clarification of future development plans

RE: Clarification of future development plans (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945

Message

Andrew Brown -> RE: Clarification of future development plans (1/8/2006 5:57:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: michaelm IMO: When I read "Resource" in this game, I tend to think more the in terms of "Processing centre" rather than "Raw resource". That is one way of looking at it, but in that case, Toboali should have no resources at all, just some VPs. Same for much of Manchukuo, Russia and China. I guess that would end the arguments about Toboali though... Andrew

jwilkerson -> RE: Clarification of future development plans (1/8/2006 6:12:06 AM)
quote: the arguments about Toboali Gee I missed those arguments about Tobaoali - could you summarize them for me !? Thx !

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Clarification of future development plans (1/8/2006 6:28:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown quote: ORIGINAL: el cid again New Caledonia is a critical resource center - the only significant source of Antimony in the world for the Allies - and lots of other vital minerals. It was given NO resource points in stock. Andrew won't give it what it should have because resource centers generate supply points. What's up with that? I can feed an army, an air force and a fleet off raw rubber, I guess. Precisely! That is what irks me about the supply/resource model the most. The tying of supply generation to resource centres makes no sense, and prevents the accurate depiction of things such as this - the value of New Caledonia and its mineral resources. Same for Nauru, and yes, even Toboali. Andrew Exactly. Just removing the hard coded dynamic between supply and resource would go along way in solving the big issue with the model.

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Clarification of future development plans (1/8/2006 6:29:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jwilkerson quote: the arguments about Toboali Gee I missed those arguments about Tobaoali - could you summarize them for me !? Thx ! You are joking, right?[:)]

el cid again -> RE: Clarification of future development plans (1/8/2006 7:39:14 AM)
quote: the Japanese are spotting the subs in 41, not 43/44 and don't have any tech. This is just wrong and it should be fixed. Subs should be hard to spot...simple. I agree - subs are hard to spot. But Japanese subs are a lot harder to spot later - when they don't have to surface. US subs don't get to use the schnorkel. As to technology - this is a very mixed bag. Japan has the magnetic anomoly detector, it has hydrophones and sonar, and it develops radar. The problems are more ones of attitude than of technology - and the technology is not perfect for either side - not even today! Japan had adequate designs for escorts and a Grand Escort Command - but didn't implement them early enough. On the other hand, when Japan made it a priority, it could mount a serious and effective ASW op (see the death of USS Wahoo - in Japanese of course - there is no US account of her loss). The real problem with WITP is that if you use your subs you lose far more than you should. But it is an even handed problem for both sides.

el cid again -> RE: Clarification of future development plans (1/8/2006 7:43:40 AM)
quote: I just mentioned that problem again yesterday or the day before somewhere, to someone in passing--that's a very old issue of mine, going back to UV, which was roundly ignored by almost everyone, of course. But it's fundamentally important to the game's play, and of course has direct ties the most worrying problem overall of the greater system: the dysfunctional logistics model. I will cure the endurance problem this week. I will make a quick and dirty first pass effort on the log problem next. I think Andrew will authorize a serious CHS effort if we can show my supply sinks work. The problem is, redoing log properly requires a gigantic research project to figure out just what should be where? But we can eat excessive supplies in the present system now - and I am going to try to demonstrate that. Ron has agreed to playtest the first pass senario - and I am willing to have more tests should anyone want to help.

el cid again -> RE: Clarification of future development plans (1/8/2006 7:51:41 AM)
quote: If you ever get around to the Allied air OOB, please examine the range ratings for the Hudson and Ventura bombers, both of which are discounted by plenty, and also the anemic Hurricane (a kind of composite Hurricane, the IIb if I recall, which is quite useless in play and not representative of what flew in-theater--at one time I was told they ran out slots for Allied planes, but why they came up with the IIb as the "most representative" Hurricane is the question). Those bomber ranges for the Hudson and Ventura especially can be critical to Allied play, and are required to be beefed up. For all I know this stuff has already been addressed by someone in the CHS project, and if so fine, but it should be double-checked. In order to do a test of air combat, I did some Allied planes - and noted they were downgraded in weapons loads and range - except where range is exaggerated. While the "SBD" is a version not available until 1943, nevertheless it lacks even its 1941 bomb load, for example! I just redid ranges and bomb loads for all Allied heavy bombers for CHS - and the data was remarkable. Normal range was with 4,000 pounds of bombs (rather than the real 5,000 pounds), and max bomb loads were grossly understated. In spite of the light loads, ranges were almost uniformly too short - the opposite of the effect of a light load. So I am prepared to believe other problems like this exist. Has anyone fixed them for any mod? Chime in and I will use them - it would take me some time to do it all from scratch. RHS is a team effort too - just not a committee in the usual sense. Instead of consensus, we have standards - any person who submits work to standard gets it accepted - first done gets preference.

el cid again -> RE: Clarification of future development plans (1/8/2006 7:55:25 AM)
quote: At least CHS is in agreement here, and has tried to make helpful changes. Unfortunately, this problem cannot be adequately addressed with the editor, and so unless it is addressed by Matrix the game system will remain crippled to that extent. In the sense we cannot fix port loading issues, you are correct. However, I think I can fix the supply generation by resource center problem. I am about to try to show this. I have invented a supply sink that seems to not only do that - taylored to the location - but also other useful things. With minimal slot requirements (none at all for major locations).

el cid again -> RE: Clarification of future development plans (1/8/2006 8:14:48 AM)
quote: I get the sense from listening to you talk that you seem to be a little more elite then the rest of us commoners around here. show me a lay man who quotes Aristotle Please try to distinguish between an Ivy League postgraduate education and a sailor who had lots of time to read and exposure to languages. Not that there is anything wrong with a postgraduate education. Actually - I don't think they will let me be a student. I once asked the Historian of Evergreen State University (one British subject named Helena Knapp) where I should go to get a degree in history? Her reply was instant and not at all what I expected (at Evergreen you can design your own program): "Don't you DARE take undergraduate courses in history! People like me can't teach people like you. Spend every hour you would spend taking courses doing research and writing, and we will teach our students what you teach us." I had invited her to The Conference on Law, War and Nuclear Policy at the Henry M Jackson School of International Studies of the University of Washington - when I noticed no women were coming. We had a charter to recommend US policy, and although not a feminist, I was uncomfortable defining a major policy with no participation from half the population. I was the author of the principle paper on the subject - Are US Nuclear Weapons Legal? (and the answer is not a simple yes or no in case you think I take simplistic positions). It had attracted attention across the political spectrum, and officially, although it was NOT written for ANY institution at all - and was the ONLY academic style paper I had EVER written. I am more like the janitor at Harvard who became an authority in biology - someone who gets things done by what I call microscopic analysis - and has no credentials at all in most fields. I never studied law at all - but I wrote the definitive study in an esoteric area of the law of land warfare - and sometimes I write legislation. I had no more than military technical school when I was assigned to devise a new tactical system to defeat anti-shipping missiles - and in only five months! I do not regard myself as patrician - royalty - superior by birth or education. On the other hand, I am not in the least insecure about taking on any problem - and you better not assign me to one if you don't want it addressed. [Once my company Vice President asked the President "Maybe we should not have sent Sid to get the City to change that?" He looked at the clock. "Its been two whole hours. Too late. It has already happened." He was right too. Once my wife informed me she could not go to work any more. "Why not?" I wondered. She said the Dept of Licencing had failed to reissue any licences for five months due to a computer problem. "OK - I will take tomarrow off and we will go to Lansing and fix it." "Sidney!" She said. "You cannot fix what no one has been able to fix for half a year." "We'll see" I replied. I didn't get her licence - alone. I got EVERY licence for EVERYONE who had been unable to get one. Had they not capitulated, I would have been on 5 pm TV with a major political scandle - 5/12 of medical workers and other professionals were unable to work because of incompetence. Sometimes the worse a problem the easier it is to get it fixed!]

el cid again -> RE: Clarification of future development plans (1/8/2006 8:25:42 AM)
quote: Because you know there is a very tiny chance that matrix would release its source to the public. I do not particularly want them to release the code - until they decide to stop supporting the game anyway. I prefer THEY do the code part. Unless they want help. I more or less will do whatever they want for free - although I recommend they pay one dollar and sign nondisclosure agreements to protect their interests. But I hope that CHS will be adopted as official. Maybe even RHS one day. On the other hand, the chance code will be released - and released soon - is not zero. All it takes is a decision it is in Matrix interests - and if it is they might. Let me be clear: I want Matrix support. But I never said we have a right to FREE support. We also have no right to a free forum. Matrix gives us both - because it is in their commercial best interests to do so. We do not own Matrix and we do not have a vote in its policy on any level. Joel was announcing a decision based, no doubt, on cost issues. But discontinuing support is not the only way to address cost issues. Matrix needs to think about the impact - positive and negative - of support on sales. And I recommend - at some point - it think about support that isn't free. For example, it could charge for the current upgrade - and allow the older upgrades to be downloaded free. ONLY players who want the latest fix package need pay for an upgrade. Eventually it too will be available to them - after the next upgrade is released. This strategy to cut in when the impact on sales of support is not enough to pay for it. Matrix has been clever - and more clever than most software houses. They get paid up front. They keep costs down too - lack of testing simply means WE are sort of a Gamma test group (one level below Beta). With WITP they get us to do scenario development without charge. Clever company. I think they will get it right - sooner or later. Anyway I hope they do.

el cid again -> RE: Clarification of future development plans (1/8/2006 8:39:04 AM)
quote: Since you are a programmer then what is your thought on it from a business point of view? What about the realities of business that you can't forever keep your whole team on a project that was released except to fix bugs and even then not full time. You know all that takes time and money. If a business is to be successful then you have to balance. I suppose the thing that upsets me most about this is your lack of respect for the people at matrix. I've talked to a few of them and some from 2by3. I like them they have been helpful to me. They have put some of my suggestions on the future dev list. I also offered to pay to get some of my ideas into the game. And received a phone call about it from the lead developer. He's a good guy. So maybe that is why i'm a little pissed. Sure i shouldn't HAVE to send a check for my own money to get something in the game done. But i will if it gets something accomplished. You speak of love for the game and wanting it to be better. You made CHS? I use it it seems ok thanks for all the work on it. But if you love the game then you get a check together too and send it to them so they can get someone to work on the code. Sure you shouldn't have to so don't even go there. Though if you LOVE the game you will. First - a disclaimer. While I can program - I am not a programmer. I was once an electronics technician - then a test technician - then a systems integrator - and finally a computer engineer of various kinds (after which I was "captured" by a client and became an administrator - and then a consultant). I understand programming - and all the way to machine code - where I began. But I don't think I ever had that as a title. Maybe we did get off on the wrong foot? We might be allies after all. I too have been favorably impressed with Matrix people - including the President when he called in person. I know very well that labor is expensive - and outside India technical labor is very expensive. I do think we need to insure Matrix has income - and I do that mainly by buying product or advocating others to do that. I also have made specific suggestions - and now I am doing specific work that might be directly usable because I have an editor. The problem with doing a complete game from scratch - in the past at least - is that it takes too many kinds of expertise. I can do the data research - I live in a library - and even coding - but I am not an artist for example. A good game needs art. It is more practical to fix a package that exists than to create one from zero. But I have done it - several times - in the mechanical game system sense. I also wrote a few computer games (e.g. The Enemy Below, based on the movie scenario, with a real sonar simulator). But it would take more years than I have left to do a system this complex alone. Or almost alone. As well you can appreciate. As for showing respect - I believe in respect. But I also believe it is perfectly respectful to say "this is not up to professional standards" - if it isn't. And it isn't.

el cid again -> RE: Clarification of future development plans (1/8/2006 9:03:30 AM)
quote: Listen i'm not a bad guy maybe more down to earth and low brow then you but I don't like seeing people i like thrown under the bus. If i have made you upset i apologize i'm not trying to personally attack you or anything. Unless it is a survival situation, I won't use deadly force. [I grew up hunting and fishing - and I volunteered to go to Viet Nam - but I never kill anything any more. But if the situation was bad enough I would.] I also won't insult anyone on principle. Also my skin is very thick - getting my feelings hurt is not something I am famous for.

Tristanjohn -> RE: Clarification of future development plans (1/8/2006 10:07:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: el cid again quote: I just mentioned that problem again yesterday or the day before somewhere, to someone in passing--that's a very old issue of mine, going back to UV, which was roundly ignored by almost everyone, of course. But it's fundamentally important to the game's play, and of course has direct ties to the most worrying problem overall of the greater system: the dysfunctional logistics model. I will cure the endurance problem this week. I will make a quick and dirty first pass effort on the log problem next. I think Andrew will authorize a serious CHS effort if we can show my supply sinks work. The problem is, redoing log properly requires a gigantic research project to figure out just what should be where? But we can eat excessive supplies in the present system now - and I am going to try to demonstrate that. Ron has agreed to playtest the first pass senario - and I am willing to have more tests should anyone want to help. To do logistics properly, sure. It would be an almost endless task, always more fine tuning as new data came in, different approaches taken, etc. The initial research alone would be grueling. But at this point just some basic improvement in that area would be most welcome. I've read your ideas re the supply sinks. If those work as intended then it's a step in the right direction. Port load/offload rates are another issue. There's no end to it. Your RHS is the only reason I came back. Ron told me about it and asked me if I was interested in testing it. And I am. I have my fingers crossed.

Tristanjohn -> RE: Clarification of future development plans (1/8/2006 10:25:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: el cid again quote: If you ever get around to the Allied air OOB, please examine the range ratings for the Hudson and Ventura bombers, both of which are discounted by plenty, and also the anemic Hurricane (a kind of composite Hurricane, the IIb if I recall, which is quite useless in play and not representative of what flew in-theater--at one time I was told they ran out slots for Allied planes, but why they came up with the IIb as the "most representative" Hurricane is the question). Those bomber ranges for the Hudson and Ventura especially can be critical to Allied play, and are required to be beefed up. For all I know this stuff has already been addressed by someone in the CHS project, and if so fine, but it should be double-checked. In order to do a test of air combat, I did some Allied planes - and noted they were downgraded in weapons loads and range - except where range is exaggerated. While the "SBD" is a version not available until 1943, nevertheless it lacks even its 1941 bomb load, for example! I just redid ranges and bomb loads for all Allied heavy bombers for CHS - and the data was remarkable. Normal range was with 4,000 pounds of bombs (rather than the real 5,000 pounds), and max bomb loads were grossly understated. In spite of the light loads, ranges were almost uniformly too short - the opposite of the effect of a light load. So I am prepared to believe other problems like this exist. Has anyone fixed them for any mod? Chime in and I will use them - it would take me some time to do it all from scratch. RHS is a team effort too - just not a committee in the usual sense. Instead of consensus, we have standards - any person who submits work to standard gets it accepted - first done gets preference. Yes, there are mistakes all over the place, on both sides of the board. It's almost as if someone did it on purpose. A person would need to be very dumb to get it that wrong accidentally. That thread I started and directed you to was intended to serve both as a place to put my ongoing research vis-a-vis the OOB and to stuff old articles I'd written on the subject going back to whenever. But I gave up in frustration and disgust. That was six or seven months ago I guess. Not sure what standards can be accepted in the usual sense, as a lot of data out there conflicts. Also, I don't own any references for the air wars in World War II, so my research in that respect is confined to the Net. Not necessarily bad, but I miss hardcopies by reputable authors, you know? I never paid the air war much mind in terms of the minutia. I trained myself in that area as I went along, after I opened up UV for the first time and saw how screwy that was. Pretty much all the mistakes from that game were slavishly carried over, with appaprently little effort (if any effort at all) made to pick up the most egregious errors, even after long bouts of serious debate in the UV forums. But you indicate that you were around then, so you must remember that, or at least some of it. Anyway, if you would like help let me know. I'll do what I can. Just let me know exactly what you want help on so that we don't suffer from redundancy of effort. I do have time as a rule, but I hate to waste it just the same.

el cid again -> RE: Clarification of future development plans (1/8/2006 7:34:01 PM)
quote: Yes, there are mistakes all over the place, on both sides of the board. It's almost as if someone did it on purpose. A person would need to be very dumb to get it that wrong accidentally. I must confess I have this feeling too. EVERYTHING I look at seems grossly misstated. Now sometimes people have wierd data and believe it. But most of this stuff is not controversial - and still it is wrong. As if it was on purpose. BUT my analysis is this: the people working did what the manual suggests: they start with a record and copy it, modifying it. What happens is they get everything wrong they don't change - it is a copy of some other record! And it is SAFER to do that than to create a new record! Because there are hidden fields. If you want a CL- copy a CL and modify the data. The problem is, if a person is in a hurry, they then keep lots of wrong data from the other CL.

Tristanjohn -> RE: Clarification of future development plans (1/8/2006 10:01:23 PM)
Where I come from they call that monkey see monkey do. And that's not necessarily to be rude. There are even worse ways to describe it if I bothered. But no matter how you term it, it doesn't fly and does float.

Pascal_slith -> RE: Clarification of future development plans (1/11/2006 3:06:24 AM)
Hello guys, I sent Andrew Brown a spreadsheet with corrected endurance data on aircraft. I have a pretty extensive library on World War II aircraft, including also de-classified documents on aircraft performance. I've also repeatedly indicated points about the resources, supplies and ships available at the start and during the game (there are too many tankers, for example, for the German U-Boat campaign on the East Coast made many transfer back to the Atlantic or slowed the arrival of new tankers in the Pacific). There are certainly many things that could be changed if the code was released to the public, though that may be a pipe-dream for a while (until Matrix/2x3 sees few or no more sales of WitP, which for most games usually occurs about 1.5-2 years from release). Regards

Sequoia -> RE: Clarification of future development plans (8/17/2007 12:32:19 AM)
So is it safe to assume that "Carrier Force" is what 2x3 is doing now and that any WitP II will wait until that project is complete?

Yamato hugger -> RE: Clarification of future development plans (9/21/2007 12:32:17 AM)
You can assume anything you wish [:D]

Terminus -> RE: Clarification of future development plans (9/21/2007 12:46:53 AM)
You know what they say when you assume...

akdreemer -> RE: Clarification of future development plans (9/28/2007 9:59:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown quote: ORIGINAL: el cid again New Caledonia is a critical resource center - the only significant source of Antimony in the world for the Allies - and lots of other vital minerals. It was given NO resource points in stock. Andrew won't give it what it should have because resource centers generate supply points. What's up with that? I can feed an army, an air force and a fleet off raw rubber, I guess. Precisely! That is what irks me about the supply/resource model the most. The tying of supply generation to resource centres makes no sense, and prevents the accurate depiction of things such as this - the value of New Caledonia and its mineral resources. Same for Nauru, and yes, even Toboali. Andrew Okay, I for one have never had much a problem with the supply/resource linkage, at least so that radical 'supply sinks' were needed to cure the problem. In the case of New Caledonia, they exported some food stuff also, primarily canned beef.

el cid again -> RE: Clarification of future development plans (10/4/2007 11:31:02 AM)
New Caledonia is indeed a significant food producer - particularly of cattle - and it could produce a lot of things. But what it could not do is support a modern army, air force and navy - even today. The problem with the linkage of supplies and resources is that they rob all strategic meaning from shipping. You do not have much need to move resources and oil to industrial centers - which turn them into supplies and food - which you then have to move to almost everywhere else. So the bulk of your shipping has no actual mission - and becomes (quoting Joe Wilkerson on this very topic) "AKs to burn" - you can risk losses and mount invasions not possible IRL. I do not have a problem with a place producing SOME local supplies - and I accept our abstract model turns them into vacuum tubes, gasoline - whatever you need. But to produce gigantic amounts of supplies when you really produce gigantic amounts of resources is pure nonsense and a hopeless distortion. I carefully insure every place gets local production represented - and if there are no resources but there are supplies - I create them anyway. Supply sinks were intended as a temporary workaround - until Matrix corrects this fundamental problem. But they turned out to have other functions so useful I bet we will keep them even when not needed for their original mission: eat excess supply. They permit us to give fixed civil assets a home - e.g. the ground support elements of small civil air organizations which were used but which were not mobile in a military sense for a minor case - and the civil defense/industrial resistence of an area in a major sense. Dutch miners and refinery and oil field and plantation operators did all sorts of things to render things useless for a while - and this was not a function of sending military units or engineers to the location. Supply sinks insure no minor force - even a platoon- can take a gigantic resource area undamaged.

Terminus -> RE: Clarification of future development plans (10/4/2007 11:05:30 PM)
It's a good thing you don't have, and never will have, any sort of influence on WitP development...

Mac67 -> RE: Clarification of future development plans (10/6/2007 3:39:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Terminus It's a good thing you don't have, and never will have, any sort of influence on WitP development... Your constant attacks on El Cid are petty, cowardly and quite frankly childish. Prehaps its time a Mod stepped in to put a stop to it...............

UniformYankee -> RE: Clarification of future development plans (10/22/2007 11:34:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mac67 quote: ORIGINAL: Terminus It's a good thing you don't have, and never will have, any sort of influence on WitP development... Your constant attacks on El Cid are petty, cowardly and quite frankly childish. Prehaps its time a Mod stepped in to put a stop to it............... [:-] And how would you characterize your own attacks, eh?

Mac67 -> RE: Clarification of future development plans (11/4/2007 5:27:32 AM)
A public service [;)]

Terminus -> RE: Clarification of future development plans (11/4/2007 5:53:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sequoia So is it safe to assume that "Carrier Force" is what 2x3 is doing now and that any WitP II will wait until that project is complete? No.

UniformYankee -> RE: Clarification of future development plans (11/6/2007 8:49:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mac67 A public service [;)] I think you mean "A public nuisance" ... [8\|]

Mac67 -> RE: Clarification of future development plans (11/7/2007 6:39:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: UniformYankee quote: ORIGINAL: Mac67 A public service [;)] I think you mean "A public nuisance" ... [8\|] Well, apparently only for you. But, hey, if you want to be my "public" you are welcome! [;)]

Mynok -> RE: Clarification of future development plans (11/7/2007 10:11:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: UniformYankee quote: ORIGINAL: Mac67 A public service [;)] I think you mean "A public nuisance" ... [8\|] The little green button next to one of its posts will ignore it for good.

Page: << < prev 2 3 4 [5] 6 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.8125