Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

[The question is can Matrix still do this kind of thing? Does it want to? Has the Slitherine merger and announced forays into tablet-based games inalterably changed the company to an extent they can't do a major mission anymore unless GG's name is attached? Time will tell. I hope they can and will.

Matrix is a publishing company. What it would take is a team of programmers, developers, testers and researchers. Will it happen? Not any time soon if it ever does. It'll also not be done by Henderson Field Designs. One go-around was enough for Gary Grigsby (who has stated he'll never attempt such a mega game again), and one go-around was enough for HFD.

I'm looking for reasons to do this, not reasons it can't be done. Realizing you were on the team are you perhaps being a bit defensive about HFD? I tried very hard to give appropriate praise for what HFD did. It was a remarkable achievement and is still delivering and still being supported. But I sometimes get the feeling that some current devs think that any call for movement forward denegrates the AE achievement. If that is the case I will once again say "not from my corner." However, that said, nothing is perfect and most creative products don't ever have to settle out and die.

I realize Matrix is a publishing company, but that doesn't have to mean just one thing. Many firms in many types of creative industries operate both as fishermen, sweeping up proposals which swim by, and hunters, going out and assembling teams to execute IP they control the rights to. Book publishers do it every day, especially in non-fiction. Few non-fiction authors begin work without a contract in hand. Movie studios do it too, hiring a director to do a screenplay they already own, said director to put together the rest of the team in concert with an executive producer. This is especially true in sequels where the risk is more known and there are financials from the last production in the series to use to set budgets and marketing expenses. TV networks do it to some extent, less than in films, but they do exercise hiring and firing control over show-runners and do sometimes go shopping for a "name" to do a show where the pilot is good but the producers need help.

In the game industry there have been multiple models. Some in-house developers who were also publishers (Microprose for example), some pure publishers (EA I thnk is this), and lots and lots of usually small pure development houses, most of which flamed up and died off quickly in the now 30+ year history of the industry. Matrix could put together a team if they wanted to. If they don't I don't expect to see a clean-sheet PTO game from someone else in my lifetime. They are in a unique strategic position for as long as interest in WWII lasts. That won't be forever, but it'll be for the rest of my life at least.

Last night I found and read an interesting interview with GG, done while WITP was nearing completion. It was interesting in that it reviewed his career in games as well as explored his feelings about Now vs. Then. He confessed to really missing the 80s when he could crank out an alpha--alone--in a month and make a six-figure income from a few such titles per year. WITP at that point was driving him bats, and he swore never again. The team was 2x3 and it was, and is, three guys. Old school, but not capable of spanning all the skill sets needed for a modern, A-class game. But yeah, WITP got finished, it was great, it set a new bar. GG rested, then did the ACW game (no slouch in terms of complexity) and is now involved in a decade's-worth of effort in the current WitE, WitW, etc. product stream. Those are mega games as well. He wasn't done.

However, my point is that GG took WITP as far as he could. He was mentally flat when it shipped by his own admission. And yet a different team, larger, with different experiences and skill sets came together as HFD and took it at least twice as far. HFD did yeoman's work, and I'm not suggesting they have anything left in the tank either. But that doesn't mean WITP needs to be over. It might mean that the next relay needs different skills once again and to work on areas HFD was not tasked to undertake.

If interested, the interview with GG is at

http://www.wargamer.com/article/1383/interview-joel-billings-and-gary-grigsby

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Interest in the American Civil War has lasted 150 years. Interest in the Spanish American War and World War I is nearly non existent in the USA. Interest in World War II is vast and will, IMO, rival the American Civil War. In other words, in 2090 you'll see WWII afficianaods on a scale comparable to what we see with the Civil War today.

There is no doubt somebody will one day do another massive Pacific Theater game. It will be somebody or some group with unique skill sets that allows them to take on the project and do it well. Obviously, Matrix Games and it's allies has a corner on this right now, but whether they have the will to do it in the near future seems doubtful. If they don't, somebody's going to come along and meet the need. Nature abhors a vacuum.

I've been hesitant to tackle any sort of comments or response to this monster. It's hard to get one's arms around. But I'll make a few comments for what it's worth. I think you have some great ideas.

quote:

ORIGINAL: fcharton

Hi Bullwinkle,

A few more points I thought about today at work.

The economic part of the problem is relatively simple. There are two sides to it, revenues, and costs.

A limited rework, and user contributed specs and tests would reduce the costs, but one must keep in mind that improving on an already good game (and working on old code) cannot be a small endeavor. If I understand correctly, AE was made possible because a dedicated group of users absorbed most of the cost, by working for free, or very low cost. I don’t know whether this route is still possible, but it needs to be considered at some point.

I have to differ here on ethical grounds. I don't know Henderson's deal, and if they were fine with it I'm fine it. But I have a problem with a for-profit company assuming they'll use unpaid volunteer labor ongoing and pocket all the profit. On the one hand everyone is free to enter any legal contract they wish, but on the other it makes me feel a little dirty to send payment off to Matrix knowing they got the goods for nothing or close to it. I did it, but I'd rather not do it again. And I don't think Matrix should try to do it again. They have at least twice as much data now on the legs WITP as a franchise has and could have. If it makes financial sense to do another cut find a way to do it clean. I personally think the only give there is falls on the revenue side; development costs what it costs. The feature set should be controlled to make that side of the equation reasonable, but this game of all their games has a unique demand elasticity. If they want to explore the upper reaches of retail pricing as a condition to green-light this I'm up for that.

On the revenue side, we all agree that the regulars would probably fund a new version, and anyway, a new WITP will prolong the product shelf life, ie more revenues. Another possibility would be if some of the new concepts (AI/UI) could be adapted to other games, or serve as the base for a new series.

I'm not so sure as I said elsewhere, but it's possible. Depends a lot on their contracts with the various devs in the stable and the state of the IP.

Now for the technical aspects… I imagine WITP as a set of four parts.

At the core is the “model”, those are the game file, the OOB and various datafiles, plus the map, and whichever parameter the game uses.

Then you have the “turn engine”, a machine that runs, and “plays” a turn, ie changes the model for today into the model for tomorrow, producing reports and a combat replay on the way.

In between, you have the user interface, which serves as an editor for the model. It allows the player to visualize part of the model (limited by FOW) and to update it (before sending it to the opponent and feeding it into the engine to get the model for tomorrow). Note that Tracker acts like a “semi-editor”, in that it allows one to visualize a turn, but you have to turn to the original UI to input your orders;

What about the AI? Well, the AI is just an automated version of the editor. It takes a turn, visualizes it and inputs changes, just like a player does (but without the wide screen, the cursing, the beer drinking, and the unhappy spouse).

In my opinion, WITP2 is about redoing the two last parts, while keeping the two first unchanged. Note that this could be done on top of the current game, but having some sort of Tracker-like tool which could not only visualize, but also edit turns. You would just use the old AE for turn processing and combat replay. (I am not advocating that. I am giving this example as a proof of concept that this four part model works)

First, a great way to visualize the thing. Excellent breakdown. To the extent I have only a user's view I think you are correct in how you group the pieces and functions.

As an aside, after reading the interview with GG I linked to in another post, and having played a number of his 1980s games on my AppleIIe, I see the remnants of that era in WITP. He came out of a strong procedural programming language background. Game flow was on a master loop architecture. I'm pretty sure some of his 8-bit games were written in BASIC, and although I looked mightily and was unable to find confirmation, I could swear I read somewhere in the distant past that "Pacific War" was written in a late version of PASCAL. That might be untrue. But my memories of how it phased seem to me not to indicate a strong object oriented programming mindset. I believe UV and WITP/AE are in some form of C (+, ++, # etc. I have no idea.) But GG loved his grand game loops in olden times, and WITP shows it. (WitE still goes there but less visibly.)

In that architectural mindset, and given that WITP was his baby and not a committee's, I think you're correct with your breakdown and the reasons for the dividing lines. It's why I think (or hope) that the opponent AI is largely to one side of the core EXE loop, with defined entry and exit points to the UI and algorithm and DB-accessing core of the engine. If, as you say, the AI and the UI are mostly divorced, or at least not deeply embedded, in the core of the exec. then modifications might be possible on the periphery where the player experiences the game at less than break-the-bank cost.

Two points from my POV, however:

1) GG made an early, core decision to make the map the focus of the UI. For everything which flies, drives, dives, or marches this is great. It allows the normal human visualization routines developed by our hunter-gatherer ancestors to kick in. "It's about THAT far from Haiphong to Saigon, so it shoud take about THIS long to get there." Much easier to play by eye than have to decide from a distance spreadshet. However, GG in making the map the interface made production, economic, and logistic tasks like undergoing root canal. Particularly for the Japanese the stock, as-shipped routines were really hard to use. Everything was drill-down from a hex. The addition of the industry tab and some sorting capability helped a lot, but Tracker is needed by many players to get a handle on things. Making a drill-down map the core management interface was not the work of a pro UI designer. As you say, it could be made even more seamless by incorporating some Tracker-type functionality into the core game. But, as in this whole discusison, that it might get too deeply into core game code.

2) When I say "AI" I mean the computer-opponent capabilities only. In the forum the term "AI" is sometimes used for this and sometimes used to mean all processes perfomed by the game which are not under player control, such as naval targetting. Some routine functions like pilot management we have discussed as being automatable, but that to me is not "AI". As well, those functions also are embedded in what you call "the model" rather than the semi-external "AI". Seeking to make them run without interface input might again require digging too deeply into core code. I'd rather advocate for improvements in opponent AI and scripting, what I have called "bolt on" aspects of the game. (Possibly naively.)

It is probably good (although not quite correct) to picture the UI as two different subsystems. You have a visualization tool, and an “input tool” to give your orders.

Right. And to some extent GG made them the same thing in ways a pure-Windows developer might not have.

At the heart of the visualization tool would be a better, zoomable, easier to search, map, and a series of user customizable reports, with data intensive reports like tracker, and more graphic visualization. I believe modern UI frameworks can handle this. One point I would really like to have is a report generator, something where you build your own dedicated screens. Something I don’t like with the current UI and Tracker is that you can’t choose what gets displayed and what doesn’t. Also, I’d love the UI to allow for “historical reports”. This would be practical for AAR, but also to keep tracks of past information.

I agree. This is in the "bolt-on" camp. If the Tracker guys, Damien and Floyd, can take a save turn file and peel it like an onion I'd think a Matrix team with full EXE access and specs could go one farther. Data management is the first step to making decisions, and GG's tables, while useful and familiar now, are not great for figuring out a strategy. I think incorporating a report generator could be done fairly cheaply and provide a lot of oomph marketing-wise. It's hard to screenshot the world's greatest AI, but you can show report screens and grogs begin to drool.

The input tool would be much linked with the “auto input tool”, aka the AI. Players would be allowed (under certain restrictions) to script and delegate to the AI some repetitive chores. Note that the AI already handles such tasks, like moving units, loading and unloading, scheduling bombardments and landings. I like to think of that scripted input as a batman. The actual AI would be made of two parts, a full fledged batman, and a scripted master plan.

This is where I get leeery. Not only on an ergonomic basis if you have some tactical decisions made here and others there, but on, again, an EXE digging basis where you might have to really latch onto things which barely work now. The kind of things you refer to would be great features if designed into the engine from the deck plates, but I'm afraid trying to graft into the current code blows up a budget pretty quickly.

One new thing the batman would make possible is multi-turn orders. This already exists, in the form of patrol orders for subs, auto-convoys, ship movement with waypoints, refuel and follow orders. You mentioned something similar for pilot training, but you could also delegate some tasks (besiege Yenan, sweep Manila, bomb Tokyo), and perhaps even have the quality depend on the ratings of your local commander.

I believe this could improve the game in several ways. First, multi turn orders would allow for better handling of three day, or even longer turns, therefore shortening the campaign. We all love our one day turn, I’m sure, but some of us would love to see what 1944 is like before Alzheimer sets in and we all forget how to spell Babeldoab (or is it daob?). Also, this might help reduce the control players have on their troops. You could very well decide that some orders can only be input every other day, or take a while to implement (à la Gamers/MMP). And then, initiative (the ability to countermand previous orders) could be decided by game parameters, leader ability and so on.

Again, here, I'm leery. I've played all three cycles, and find the 3-days are past the point I'm comfortable. A week-turn cycle in WitE works due to the scale POV of control (larger formations mostly) as well as speed of advance of the units against a contested, old-school front-line of battle. Going past 3-days in WITP and ships and planes can be in and out before the opponent ever sees them. The PTO is not a battle line enviro. At certain times in the war it's a 360 degree problem for each side. I do agree that longer cycles addresses issues like attracting different types of players, and it does somewhat disguise AI weaknesses by letting the AI always play 1-day turns even when the human is tied gagged to a stake for five days or a week, but I think you'd have to be very careful not to break a system designed around very low-levels of unit abstraction.

Finally, such multi turn orders could be a game balancing factor, and boon for the AI. Just imagine an AI like the current one (ie slightly dumb) but reacting on a much faster cycle than the player. For instance, the player would be on three day turns, but the AI would react on a daily, or lower, basis. To some extent, such a use of multi turn orders would serve as a “poor man improved AI” (and would be a perfect illustration of OODA and other cycle based warfare models).

And this is how, dear reader, I spoilt what looked this morning like a perfect day of work…

Well, it still was perfect, right? Maybe not profitable . . .
Hope you didn't get fired.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

I've spent some of my "spare time" in the past two years working on a new AI model. I want something that plays like I do .. that thinks like I do ... that can react to circumstances ... that looks at data across time (trends) and not just "what are we doing this turn". Each level of the AI essentially solves the same problem ... how to I accomplish my mission with the forces I have available, given what I know about the enemy and given what I know about terrain, weather, supply, etc.
I've learned a lot ... I've learned that experienced game players have a lot going on "under their hoods" ... in terms of matching up resources across a multiple dimensional data set. I think we do this mostly without realizing we do it! As I've tried to break down what I do and why I do it - I've realized how much I am doing that I do not even know I am doing!
So what would it take to finish this and make a working AI engine? I'd say at least four people - game players who are willing to analyze and write down how they play - and do this a lot for the first year - from all this we synthesize the AI "algorithms" ... the second year is spent testing. This is for the land AI ... for the Naval, Air and strategic aspects you need other teams.
I haven't seen the resource availability within our team to make this happen - so thus far - it has not.

I wouldn't rule out a WITP2 one day. But it might not have the Joe vision of a new AI

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider
Some of what is proposed is great to dream about...but the current engine simply cannot handle it, a rewrite from the ground up is required and I don't think you're going to find anyone in the near future willing to take on the task.

quote:

This is where I get leeery. Not only on an ergonomic basis if you have some tactical decisions made here and others there, but on, again, an EXE digging basis where you might have to really latch onto things which barely work now. The kind of things you refer to would be great features if designed into the engine from the deck plates, but I'm afraid trying to graft into the current code blows up a budget pretty quickly.

quote:

Again, here, I'm leery. I've played all three cycles, and find the 3-days are past the point I'm comfortable. A week-turn cycle in WitE works due to the scale POV of control (larger formations mostly) as well as speed of advance of the units against a contested, old-school front-line of battle. Going past 3-days in WITP and ships and planes can be in and out before the opponent ever sees them. The PTO is not a battle line enviro. At certain times in the war it's a 360 degree problem for each side. I do agree that longer cycles addresses issues like attracting different types of players, and it does somewhat disguise AI weaknesses by letting the AI always play 1-day turns even when the human is tied gagged to a stake for five days or a week, but I think you'd have to be very careful not to break a system designed around very low-levels of unit abstraction.

quote:

ORIGINAL: fcharton
There are very few things in the game that Tracker cannot reach. Some might just be overlooked by Damian and Floyd (because they don't need them, eg weather forecasts). Others, like enemy DL, are clearly in the game file (since it contains "both sides"), but would need to be interpreted in the same way the engine does to put the enemy on the map. No code rewrite here, but some code reading.

On the input side, everything that can be undone in the current UI could be handled by a Tracker like tool. And everything you do can be restored, just by saving and reloading a file... We'd most certainly want a better solution, but I think it proves you dont need rewrites.

quote:

At the heart of the visualization tool would be a better, zoomable, easier to search, map, and a series of user customizable reports, with data intensive reports like tracker, and more graphic visualization. I believe modern UI frameworks can handle this. One point I would really like to have is a report generator, something where you build your own dedicated screens. Something I don’t like with the current UI and Tracker is that you can’t choose what gets displayed and what doesn’t. Also, I’d love the UI to allow for “historical reports”. This would be practical for AAR, but also to keep tracks of past information.

quote:

ORIGINAL: n01487477
Floyd has to hold me back at times from allowing Tracker to become bloatware with my craving to explore, data mine and add. The Java overhead and the DB requirements alone make maintaining all the data a difficult balancing act.

quote:

ORIGINAL: n01487477
I'd rather be part of a team improving the witp-ae interface much like what Francois is suggesting.

quote:

ORIGINAL: n01487477
Importantly, any witp-ae 1.5 requires access to the existing code - otherwise this conversation is mute.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
... I want something that plays like I do .. that thinks like I do ... that can react to circumstances ... that looks at data across time (trends) and not just "what are we doing this turn". Each level of the AI essentially solves the same problem ... how to I accomplish my mission with the forces I have available, given what I know about the enemy and given what I know about terrain, weather, supply, etc.

... I've learned that experienced game players have a lot going on "under their hoods" ... I think we do this mostly without realizing we do it! As I've tried to break down what I do and why I do it - I've realized how much I am doing that I do not even know I am doing!

...I'd say at least four people - game players who are willing to analyze and write down how they play- and do this a lot for the first year - from all this we synthesize the AI "algorithms" ...

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
that can react to circumstances ... that looks at data across time (trends) and not just "what are we doing this turn".

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58



I'm looking for reasons to do this, not reasons it can't be done. Realizing you were on the team are you perhaps being a bit defensive about HFD? I tried very hard to give appropriate praise for what HFD did. It was a remarkable achievement and is still delivering and still being supported. But I sometimes get the feeling that some current devs think that any call for movement forward denegrates the AE achievement. If that is the case I will once again say "not from my corner." However, that said, nothing is perfect and most creative products don't ever have to settle out and die.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58



I'm looking for reasons to do this, not reasons it can't be done. Realizing you were on the team are you perhaps being a bit defensive about HFD? I tried very hard to give appropriate praise for what HFD did. It was a remarkable achievement and is still delivering and still being supported. But I sometimes get the feeling that some current devs think that any call for movement forward denegrates the AE achievement. If that is the case I will once again say "not from my corner." However, that said, nothing is perfect and most creative products don't ever have to settle out and die.

Read into it whatever you want. My post was meant for the general public before any who havn't seen the bulk of past "WitP2" threads before they get their hopes up. HFD's has no plans for a WitP2.

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

AARs would not do it. Even for people who put a lot in their AARs, the stuff Joe is talking about is WAY more that doesn't get into AARs much. Even the notes players would make for a year would then need to be analyzed to suss out the details.

quote:

ORIGINAL: fcharton

Picture a tool like an expanded Tracker, with a "drillable" map, customisable reports, and which can not only edit, but also modify, the save file it takes as input. Such an aide could be used to play AE: after the combat replay, you save the turn, load it into the tool, modifiy it, then fire AE and just push on the "turn complete" button, send it to your opponent (assuming PBEM, against AI, the process ands there), who does the same, feed the finished turn into AE for the turn resolution, and here you go again.

You now have a new User Interface, without ANY code rewrite.

On the good side this might be easier. On the "uh oh" side two thoughts/questions posed to me in different form in an off-line discussion of this topic:

1) Matrix has historically had a line in the sand against any utility or program which will modify a save game file. Is there a way around this in what you're suggesting?

2) Could a method be inserted to disallow a PBEM opponent from re-running multiple passes to optimize resuts before commiting them to a re-save?

I think the idea of a to-the-side management interface is very good if it allows normal Windows functionality but also links back to EXE hooks and variables in existing algorithms. It would allow a lot more creative freedom in layout, graphics, and customization than working inside the pixel-counting layouts of the current management screens and tables. I just think there would need to be security lock-downs in place before saved games could float out of the current structure.

quote:

quote:

Bullwinkle said: Again, here, I'm leery. I've played all three cycles, and find the 3-days are past the point I'm comfortable. A week-turn cycle in WitE works due to the scale POV of control (larger formations mostly) as well as speed of advance of the units against a contested, old-school front-line of battle. Going past 3-days in WITP and ships and planes can be in and out before the opponent ever sees them. The PTO is not a battle line enviro. At certain times in the war it's a 360 degree problem for each side. I do agree that longer cycles addresses issues like attracting different types of players, and it does somewhat disguise AI weaknesses by letting the AI always play 1-day turns even when the human is tied gagged to a stake for five days or a week, but I think you'd have to be very careful not to break a system designed around very low-levels of unit abstraction.

You are certainly right here. Maybe the good idea would be to have different cycles for different tasks, and, perhaps, to put a bit more inertia into the system. I always have a slightly unreal feeling when I can modify my plans just after I got the combat report. Human organization (no matter how they like to picture themselves in books and films) never are that efficient and smooth.

As this thread goes on I see better what each person is saying. This gave me a far better idea of what you mean by a "Tracker type" UI.

Your comment on different cycles made me think more about how the turn-by-turn routine goes. Certianly you are correct that the game allows human players to react and change virtually any factor in war management each and every 24 hours. Completely insane even today with instant comms. In the 1940s, a manual typewriter and carbon paper environment, things took time.

How about this: in the Tracker-like environment allow a player setting, either up front in game set-up or interactive, to move certain game functions to a "Staff Meeting" planning envioronment. Players who want to stay as is could. Players who wanted a more period flavor would choose a staff meeting every seven game days. Players who were masochists, or who wanted to give the AI the ultimate help, or who wanted to play a GC pretty fast in RL terms, could choose a monthly staff meeting.

The tactical/local elements of the game would largely stay as is now. Air unit orders, TF loading and routing, LCU moves and attacks, etc. But the management functions would move to the staff meeting screens. (Full-screen, Windows functions like right-click menus, drag&drop, no tiny buttons, etc.)

These would include:

-Ship repair queues and priority assignments
-Assignment of objectives for LCU prep
-LCU replacements on/off; ditto aircraft and pilots; pilot replacements would need to come from Group Reserve between staff meetings
-all pilot pool lateral moves
-all withdrawl orders
-R&D changes; aircraft model production changes
-Industry on/off, repairs on/off, all industry expansions
-all shipbuilding decisions
-TOE upgrade orders
-all at-will leader replacements
-assignment of surface ASW patrol zones
-assignment of sub patrol zones; make the subs rest for a week between patrols (or a month)
-orders to fortify above level 6

Again, all this could be put into the UI, without touching the original code. You could have some new orders be delayed, or have a risk of not being implemented, or limit the number of orders you can give a unit over a period of time, since the UI could keep track of it.

The planning points idea was put into WitE and is both loved and hated from what I see in the forum. It recognizes that senior leaders have finite time, energy, and mental bandwidth. They force the human player to prioritize what needs to be done now, and what can wait. Some WITP palyers would like this; others would feel handcuffed. I think the per-turn points alloted would be the most critical decision.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

AARs would not do it. Even for people who put a lot in their AARs, the stuff Joe is talking about is WAY more that doesn't get into AARs much. Even the notes players would make for a year would then need to be analyzed to suss out the details.

OK, I'm understanding better what level of detail is meant. Would it be possible do you think to perhaps have some of the better players write in essay, outline, bullet, etc. format what they do in a typical GC, from memory, and then follow up with a turn-by-turn log in the succeeding year? To get some early work done? Just a thought. Many of these players have done multiple games now, at least through mid-war.

Edit: Maybe Matrix would toss some free goods their way in lieu of cash?

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

AARs would not do it. Even for people who put a lot in their AARs, the stuff Joe is talking about is WAY more that doesn't get into AARs much. Even the notes players would make for a year would then need to be analyzed to suss out the details.

OK, I'm understanding better what level of detail is meant. Would it be possible do you think to perhaps have some of the better players write in essay, outline, bullet, etc. format what they do in a typical GC, from memory, and then follow up with a turn-by-turn log in the succeeding year? To get some early work done? Just a thought. Many of these players have done multiple games now, at least through mid-war.

Edit: Maybe Matrix would toss some free goods their way in lieu of cash?

I'm not sure what people would be willing (or able?) to do. The things that we take into consideration often get done very quickly, often automatically. You are (IMO) talking about something along the lines of a significant research study. Can you get federal funding?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
2) Could a method be inserted to disallow a PBEM opponent from re-running multiple passes to optimize resuts before commiting them to a re-save?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
1) Matrix has historically had a line in the sand against any utility or program which will modify a save game file. Is there a way around this in what you're suggesting?

quote:

ORIGINAL: fcharton

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
2) Could a method be inserted to disallow a PBEM opponent from re-running multiple passes to optimize resuts before commiting them to a re-save?

I am not sure I understand the problem. Right now, you can't "test" a turn you've played because you need to send it to the other player before it is replayed. The new system would work exactly the same.

quote:

ORIGINAL: US87891


There’s a lot that a specific AI editor can do. It can be context searchable and be able to show what scripts are running and what units (Bases, LCUs, AGs) are allocated to an active script. This alone improves the efficiency. And then allow for selectable units for selected ops according to the scenario OOB, and allow for a double flag for defense and assault units. Too much to talk about even briefly.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
How about this: in the Tracker-like environment allow a player setting, either up front in game set-up or interactive, to move certain game functions to a "Staff Meeting" planning envioronment. Players who want to stay as is could. Players who wanted a more period flavor would choose a staff meeting every seven game days. Players who were masochists, or who wanted to give the AI the ultimate help, or who wanted to play a GC pretty fast in RL terms, could choose a monthly staff meeting.

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

AARs would not do it. Even for people who put a lot in their AARs, the stuff Joe is talking about is WAY more that doesn't get into AARs much.

quote:


Even the notes players would make for a year would then need to be analyzed to suss out the details.