Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Aircraft Upgrades

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Aircraft Upgrades Page: <<   < prev  17 18 [19] 20 21   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 1:44:09 AM   
ZOOMIE1980

 

Posts: 1284
Joined: 4/9/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: joliverlay

Earlier in the post you asked for a proposal. Here it is.

Allow players to change aircraft types at will. This should be possible. If the code will allow it then add any of the following "extra" constraints.

1. Army must us Army and Navy must use Navy
2. Fighter must exchange for fighters, etc.
3. Same number of engines (2 engine for 2 engine)
4. Deduct experience for changing aircraft types outside of criteria 2 or 3.
5. Require discovery of preeceding aircraft types prior to secondary types.
6. Require PPs to change aircraft types.
7. Increase production points required to produce advance aircraft.
8. Use geometric or exponential or other increasing costs for larger numbers of advance aircraft.
9. Randomly (or not) make some designs very hard to produce.
10. Make it an OPTION
11. APPLY ONLY TO JAPANESE

Most of these ideas have already been used in either USAAF, BTR, BOB, or Pac War.

etc.

OK NOW YOU HAVE A PROPOSAL

Before you guys claim it could not happen, the Luftwaffe routinely changed back and forth from ME-109s to FW-190s based on available aircraft. Does anybody belive that Japanese units did not? I have read that old aircraft production (Nates) was restarted to produce cheaper Kamakazi aircraft and that some units downgraded for this reason.

OK....if the answer is No, then I have another proposal. IMPROVE THE AI!

Thanks.


And that is about as straight forward a proposal as it gets. And has been made REPEATEDLY in this thread! I fail to see where Frag comes off claiming people have no ideas. What does he want? A completely coded application block complete with UML diagrams?

My suggestion, since the complainers seem to center on wanting the BTR system.

Put the BTR system in WitP. The same guy designed and coded both, right?

(in reply to joliverlay)
Post #: 541
RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 1:45:55 AM   
Caltone


Posts: 651
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: Raleigh, NC USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Again Zoomie, lots of typing and no answer ... one day you'll read one of my posts ... Let me make it simple:

"Complaint: Aircraft/Research semi-hardcoded, does not allow player flexibility as requested"

"Solution: <blank>

Is that so tough for you to grasp? No one cares about your coding skills. No one cares about your "I rewrote the world while GG slept" stories. Fill in the <blank> with something that makes sense AND is historically realistic.


Give me the game source code so I can make an informed suggestion.



Lets see they spent several years developing this game, they are currently selling it, they are currently supporting it and you want the source code?

That has got to be one of the most ridiculous things you've ever said. If it was a joke, it didn't come across too well.

Why do you need to source code to suggest options? Suggest your solution, let others do the same, let those get presented to 2by3 and let them decide if they can/will do it.

As Frag said, why is that so hard?

FWIW, I like the system as is, if it is changed, then it should absolutely be a toggle. And don't forget, the views in this forum, and this thread, represent a very small part of the WitP audience.

_____________________________

"Order AP Hill to prepare for battle" -- Stonewall Jackson

(in reply to ZOOMIE1980)
Post #: 542
RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 1:48:29 AM   
Sultanofsham

 

Posts: 728
Joined: 4/20/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag



It's funny how when the chips are down and you ask them complaining to offer up something better, they clam up.



Your so full of crap its not funny. This was posted what, 5 pages ago. Maybe I should dig through the rest of the ideas posted while you were demagoging the thread as being a post for players wanting F18's.

quote:


1. Auto upgrade paths stay the same and are free.

2. You can spend a small amount of PP to bring in an aircraft thats in the squads upgrade path early or switching to a past aircraft type.

3. You can spend a larger amount of PP to bring in an aircraft thats not in the upgrade path.

4. Aircraft have to be of the same class. Fighter to fighter, Bomber to bomber, and so on.

5. No using Army aircraft with Navy aircraft (unless it happend durring the war) or any other cross service jumping.

6. Group takes an exp hit for the switch.

7. Both sides should have this option.

8. It should be an option button set at the start of the game along with the ahistoric sub buttons. That way if ya want it then you have it and if ya dont then you never need to mess with it.


_____________________________

Sci-fi channel SUCKS.

One of the true tests of leadership is the ability to recognize a problem before it becomes an emergency.
-- Arnold H. Glasow

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 543
RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 1:50:30 AM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline
quote:

And that is about as straight forward a proposal as it gets. And has been made REPEATEDLY in this thread! I fail to see where Frag comes off claiming people have no ideas. What does he want? A completely coded application block complete with UML diagrams?


Can you STOP THINKING CODE long enough to READ a post???

Think it is 1941. You are in charge of Japan's aircraft production. You have finite abilities to come up with aircraft for two different services who have different requirements. You have very real limits as to what you can come up with based on available technology. What would your system look like?

Forget CODE!!! Think Reality & Concept.

(in reply to ZOOMIE1980)
Post #: 544
RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 1:51:45 AM   
Banquet

 

Posts: 1184
Joined: 8/23/2002
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag
Fill in the <blank> with something that makes sense AND is historically realistic.


Should that be historically binding?

The <blank>, for me, is research. Get rid of it. It's almost pointless anyway. Give us aircraft production based on preset entry dates and let us place our aircraft where we need them.

Where's the gripe? The system is so obviously flawed..

_____________________________


(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 545
RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 1:52:25 AM   
ZOOMIE1980

 

Posts: 1284
Joined: 4/9/2004
Status: offline
quote:


Lets see they spent several years developing this game, they are currently selling it, they are currently supporting it and you want the source code?
That has got to be one of the most ridiculous things you've ever said. If it was a joke, it didn't come across too well.


Lets see, we have a guy wanting detailed, realistic, workable design solution recommendations. One little problem there. Guess what that is?

quote:


Why do you need to source code to suggest options? Suggest your solution, let others do the same, let those get presented to 2by3 and let them decide if they can/will do it.
As Frag said, why is that so hard?


Why waste time suggesting options that are almost alway REJECTED as being "fundemental design changes" and as such, it is not economical to do? How are we supposed to KNOW what involves or does not involve "fundemental re-design" issues if we are not privy to those design?

So back at you, genius. What is so hard about THAT concept???


quote:


FWIW, I like the system as is, if it is changed, then it should absolutely be a toggle. And don't forget, the views in this forum, and this thread, represent a very small part of the WitP audience.


And a LOT of the "smart" part, however the hell you define that, hates this design.... I honestly don't care that way one way or the other. It is the tone, as usaul, Frag takes with posters wanting changes that don't mesh with his VIEW and his constant demanding of nonsensical "solutions" that require a great deal more knowledge of the internals than ANY of us have access to.

(in reply to Caltone)
Post #: 546
RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 1:52:47 AM   
Sultanofsham

 

Posts: 728
Joined: 4/20/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

And that is about as straight forward a proposal as it gets. And has been made REPEATEDLY in this thread! I fail to see where Frag comes off claiming people have no ideas.



Because he cant come up with an good argument against it. Hes just running a moving goalpost defense against something he doesnt want in the game.

_____________________________

Sci-fi channel SUCKS.

One of the true tests of leadership is the ability to recognize a problem before it becomes an emergency.
-- Arnold H. Glasow

(in reply to ZOOMIE1980)
Post #: 547
RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 1:54:17 AM   
2ndACR


Posts: 5665
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline
Mine would look just like BTR or the one Nick posted on page 18. I even agreed to it.

IJA-IJA
fighter-fighter
IJN-IJN

up or down makes no difference to me.

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 548
RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 1:55:01 AM   
ZOOMIE1980

 

Posts: 1284
Joined: 4/9/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

And that is about as straight forward a proposal as it gets. And has been made REPEATEDLY in this thread! I fail to see where Frag comes off claiming people have no ideas. What does he want? A completely coded application block complete with UML diagrams?


Can you STOP THINKING CODE long enough to READ a post???

Think it is 1941. You are in charge of Japan's aircraft production. You have finite abilities to come up with aircraft for two different services who have different requirements. You have very real limits as to what you can come up with based on available technology. What would your system look like?

Forget CODE!!! Think Reality & Concept.


Read the above. That is all VERY simple and VERY straight forward. Go play BTR. That's what's wanted by those that want this change.

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 549
RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 1:57:31 AM   
ZOOMIE1980

 

Posts: 1284
Joined: 4/9/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

Mine would look just like BTR or the one Nick posted on page 18. I even agreed to it.

IJA-IJA
fighter-fighter
IJN-IJN

up or down makes no difference to me.


Frag can't seem to read for comprehension when the subject matter is a change he philosophically disagrees with.

I think it is high time Mike Wood or someone of authority come on and give a thumbs up or a thump down. Then either Frag can go find another game or the BTR fanatics can go find another game.....

(in reply to 2ndACR)
Post #: 550
RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 2:00:54 AM   
Sultanofsham

 

Posts: 728
Joined: 4/20/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

So, GG and Co. have the code to the BTR research and ugrade system. Want a suggestiong that your team has actual stuff to use.....OK. Incorporate the BTR research and upgrade solution into WitP. How's that?


And this models Japan's abilities how?


How about it models the real life ability of a CinC of an airforce to say I want you to use those planes over there or didnt god include that ability in the Japanese?

_____________________________

Sci-fi channel SUCKS.

One of the true tests of leadership is the ability to recognize a problem before it becomes an emergency.
-- Arnold H. Glasow

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 551
RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 2:01:48 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

If you have no interest in technical solution ideas, don't bother to read the posts... If Matrix had a public "Developers" forum Capt Cruft, myself, and some others would likely be there rather than here, for sure....


All i've seen you do is talk. Gary and Mike walk the walk. You asked for the source code, which if you were the great designer you say you are, you would know that such a request is unreasonable and is not something that is done on the fly to persons outside of the employ of the company in question. You then asked me why were formulae posted in some of the old SSI 8bit games but not now. I commented. It was not meant to be an insult but a simple statement of fact though admitedly you do provide a convienient example nor have you denied on other threads that you bash Gary pretty hard in your infinite wisdom. My thoughts may be wrong. You are free to take em or leave em.

The Internet is indeed a wonderful font for the exchange of ideas. But every side has it's dark cloud. That dark cloud is that every would be programmer/designer/etc etc comes out of the woodwork with their idea on how things should be.

Given all that and the time contraints involved....i can understand how Mike and Gary would not have time to wax poetic on why they do what they do, nor do i fault them if they abstain. I think Matrix and 2b3's record for allowing the input of creative ideas and adjustments speaks for itself. But everyone isn't going to get everything they want.

< Message edited by Nikademus -- 8/13/2004 12:02:37 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to ZOOMIE1980)
Post #: 552
RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 2:07:25 AM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline
quote:

Read the above. That is all VERY simple and VERY straight forward. Go play BTR. That's what's wanted by those that want this change.


What does Gemany's well funded well engineered design abilities have to do with Japan's primative reality of what they could make?

As far as the above post ... look very closely at #5

quote:

5. No using Army aircraft with Navy aircraft (unless it happend durring the war) or any other cross service jumping.


That is what is required ... produce the legitimate rules that would govern this and keep it historically legitimate.

The rest of the list has nothing to do with *history*, it is all about the game interface ... stop thinking interface and start thinking history.

What are the *rules* that must be put in place to govern the *game* to make it historically accurate or at least historically plausable so we are not reducing history's reality to widget processing that has nothing at all to do with history. Why did Japan not retool for modern aircraft? What stopped them? Rubber shortages? Aluminum? Steel? Electronic? What is historically reasonable to have to capture the proper feel of Japan compared to the Allied "oh, we'll just build a brand new factory and make those too"

(in reply to ZOOMIE1980)
Post #: 553
RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 2:14:07 AM   
Sultanofsham

 

Posts: 728
Joined: 4/20/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

well, again, you seem bent on the idea, that only top of the line fighters, Uber fighters are going to be built and used, and place in the front lines


If you are free to swap them anytime you want, who would build anything else?


You can look at the aircraft stats for both sides and answer that for yourself. Its not hard to see why if you'd quit with the everyone wants the bestest of the mostest garbage.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag
Seriously, this is an answer I really want to hear.

If you had the choice of flipping out your Nates for Tonies when the game starts you would not do it?


It depends on what Im doing at the time and what my plans are. The newest plane isnt aways the best for the job at hand.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag
Perhaps if I understood the logic you guys are trying to present, I might be on your side...


Given your demogogary and out right mis statements on what we're ask for and why I doubt you'll ever be on "our" side nor do I care (not going to speak for the others).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag
Right now all I see is people want to be able to replace aircraft with other aircraft but no one is talking about any form of realistic controls to govern it's use. Thats a quarter of a solution ... try proposing a *whole* solution and you'll probably find that I am not against it at all.


Bull. People have offered "whole" solutions which you havnt said a word about while you kept on claming all we want is a force of the best type of plane.

_____________________________

Sci-fi channel SUCKS.

One of the true tests of leadership is the ability to recognize a problem before it becomes an emergency.
-- Arnold H. Glasow

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 554
RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 2:15:47 AM   
2ndACR


Posts: 5665
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

And that is about as straight forward a proposal as it gets. And has been made REPEATEDLY in this thread! I fail to see where Frag comes off claiming people have no ideas. What does he want? A completely coded application block complete with UML diagrams?


Can you STOP THINKING CODE long enough to READ a post???

Think it is 1941. You are in charge of Japan's aircraft production. You have finite abilities to come up with aircraft for two different services who have different requirements. You have very real limits as to what you can come up with based on available technology. What would your system look like?

Forget CODE!!! Think Reality & Concept.


Read the above. That is all VERY simple and VERY straight forward. Go play BTR. That's what's wanted by those that want this change.


Not sure what you mean? All i want is the ability to use the tools given to me to do better in the game than in history. I do have BTR. Some of these arguments are becoming counter productive.

My MAIN complaint is dead end upgrade paths. PERIOD. IJA-IJN planes I do not want.
Bomber to fighter I do not want. Two engine fighter has to stay a 2 engine fighter etc.
Dive bomber stays a dive bomber. PERIOD.

That is what US BTR TYPES want. PERIOD. Night fighter stays a night fighter. Period.

We DO NOT WANT DEAD END paths.

(in reply to ZOOMIE1980)
Post #: 555
RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 2:21:15 AM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline
quote:

Bull. People have offered "whole" solutions which you havnt said a word about while you kept on claming all we want is a force of the best type of plane.


Nope, not a single solution in this thread that addresses historic controls. Not one.

The closest that anything comes is charging PP for it. Thats a minor counter weight to slow it down.

It does not address whether Japan could historically produce the aircraft in the first place.

Sorry, I can't find my Settlers to send them out of harvest more gold so I can buy better aircraft ... oops, wrong game.

(in reply to Sultanofsham)
Post #: 556
RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 2:26:22 AM   
moses

 

Posts: 2252
Joined: 7/7/2002
Status: offline
Wow, havn't read the whole thread so sorry if I repeat somthing. This isn't that big of an issue with me since I don't fiddle with production to much after it was suggested that to much changing would wreck the economy. The following seems clear to me however:

1) A decision was made to allow players to control production. Historical arguments could be made against this decision. The issues of army/navy rivalry, domestic and political issues, difficulties dealing with the Japanese industry leaders, and the desire to prevent players from gaining to much from hindsight all come to mind. However these are all reasons not to give players control of production. This decision has already been made. Production is in the hands of the players.

2) Production decisions and game events may lead to mismatches between the aircraft available in the pool and the squadren types currently in use. Now historically there is no doubt about what will happen. The Army and Navy may fight about who gets what aircraft but one thing is almost certain. They will go somewhere. Either new squadrens will be created or current squadrens will upgrade to the available aircraft. Therefore players should be able to upgrade aircraft as they wish.

3) If it is desired to restrict the extent to which a player can change his air fleet, then this should be done at the level of production. So for example say you want to require players to produce Oscars for whatever historical reason. It would then make since to not allow a player to change the production of Oscar's to Zero's or to change the production of aircraft which upgrade to Oscars to anything else. However once you have allowed him to change all of his production it makes no sence for you then to restrict the ability to use these aircraft.

4) To summarize: restrictions on production changes can possibly be justified. Not allowing a player to use the aircraft that he has been allowed to produce cannot.

< Message edited by moses -- 8/12/2004 6:27:31 PM >

(in reply to ZOOMIE1980)
Post #: 557
RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 2:36:33 AM   
Sultanofsham

 

Posts: 728
Joined: 4/20/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

Read the above. That is all VERY simple and VERY straight forward. Go play BTR. That's what's wanted by those that want this change.


What does Gemany's well funded well engineered design abilities have to do with Japan's primative reality of what they could make?


He is talking about the ability to upgrade and downgrade. Quit trying to draw this into something else its not.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag
quote:

5. No using Army aircraft with Navy aircraft (unless it happend durring the war) or any other cross service jumping.


That is what is required ... produce the legitimate rules that would govern this and keep it historically legitimate.

The rest of the list has nothing to do with *history*, it is all about the game interface ... stop thinking interface and start thinking history.


Start thinking history??? Yeah it can go on a toggel next to the non historical Sub settings, thenon historical initial set ups and any other non historical thing they want to add. It'll fit in with my ability to non historically bomb something other than Pearl at the start ofthe game, non historically sack dug out Doug or anyone else I want to, or non historically set up bases where there were none durring WW2.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag
What are the *rules* that must be put in place to govern the *game* to make it historically accurate or at least historically plausable so we are not reducing history's reality to widget processing that has nothing at all to do with history. Why did Japan not retool for modern aircraft? What stopped them? Rubber shortages? Aluminum? Steel? Electronic? What is historically reasonable to have to capture the proper feel of Japan compared to the Allied "oh, we'll just build a brand new factory and make those too"


Really what did rubber shortages, aluminum shortages, or shortages of anything else have to do with the CnC saying"I have 100 <insert plane here> in the pool, I want your sqaud to draw 24 of the things and fly them"? Come on what does it have to do with it?

Again with a bunch of garbage that has nothing to do with being able to have a choice of which aircraft a group is equiped with. You want to stick to the matter at hand and post your gripes with the production and research in a thread that has something to do with it please?

_____________________________

Sci-fi channel SUCKS.

One of the true tests of leadership is the ability to recognize a problem before it becomes an emergency.
-- Arnold H. Glasow

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 558
RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 2:47:44 AM   
Sultanofsham

 

Posts: 728
Joined: 4/20/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Nope, not a single solution in this thread that addresses historic controls. Not one.


Yep people have offered a whole solution to what the whole point of the thread is. Just because you dont like the idea and have tossed a bunch of other garbage that doesnt have anything to do with choosing what aircraft a squad can use doesnt make it any less true.

You want to deal with imperfections in the production and research model of the game then do it but quit trying to tie it to something else it has nothing to due with.

_____________________________

Sci-fi channel SUCKS.

One of the true tests of leadership is the ability to recognize a problem before it becomes an emergency.
-- Arnold H. Glasow

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 559
RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 3:01:58 AM   
Sultanofsham

 

Posts: 728
Joined: 4/20/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: moses

Wow, havn't read the whole thread so sorry if I repeat somthing. This isn't that big of an issue with me since I don't fiddle with production to much after it was suggested that to much changing would wreck the economy. The following seems clear to me however:

1) A decision was made to allow players to control production. Historical arguments could be made against this decision. The issues of army/navy rivalry, domestic and political issues, difficulties dealing with the Japanese industry leaders, and the desire to prevent players from gaining to much from hindsight all come to mind. However these are all reasons not to give players control of production. This decision has already been made. Production is in the hands of the players.

2) Production decisions and game events may lead to mismatches between the aircraft available in the pool and the squadren types currently in use. Now historically there is no doubt about what will happen. The Army and Navy may fight about who gets what aircraft but one thing is almost certain. They will go somewhere. Either new squadrens will be created or current squadrens will upgrade to the available aircraft. Therefore players should be able to upgrade aircraft as they wish.

3) If it is desired to restrict the extent to which a player can change his air fleet, then this should be done at the level of production. So for example say you want to require players to produce Oscars for whatever historical reason. It would then make since to not allow a player to change the production of Oscar's to Zero's or to change the production of aircraft which upgrade to Oscars to anything else. However once you have allowed him to change all of his production it makes no sence for you then to restrict the ability to use these aircraft.

4) To summarize: restrictions on production changes can possibly be justified. Not allowing a player to use the aircraft that he has been allowed to produce cannot.



Well put.

_____________________________

Sci-fi channel SUCKS.

One of the true tests of leadership is the ability to recognize a problem before it becomes an emergency.
-- Arnold H. Glasow

(in reply to moses)
Post #: 560
RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 3:39:15 AM   
Caltone


Posts: 651
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: Raleigh, NC USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

If you have no interest in technical solution ideas, don't bother to read the posts... If Matrix had a public "Developers" forum Capt Cruft, myself, and some others would likely be there rather than here, for sure....


All i've seen you do is talk. Gary and Mike walk the walk. You asked for the source code, which if you were the great designer you say you are, you would know that such a request is unreasonable and is not something that is done on the fly to persons outside of the employ of the company in question. You then asked me why were formulae posted in some of the old SSI 8bit games but not now. I commented. It was not meant to be an insult but a simple statement of fact though admitedly you do provide a convienient example nor have you denied on other threads that you bash Gary pretty hard in your infinite wisdom. My thoughts may be wrong. You are free to take em or leave em.

The Internet is indeed a wonderful font for the exchange of ideas. But every side has it's dark cloud. That dark cloud is that every would be programmer/designer/etc etc comes out of the woodwork with their idea on how things should be.

Given all that and the time contraints involved....i can understand how Mike and Gary would not have time to wax poetic on why they do what they do, nor do i fault them if they abstain. I think Matrix and 2b3's record for allowing the input of creative ideas and adjustments speaks for itself. But everyone isn't going to get everything they want.



Excellent post Nik. I noticed Zoom didn't or wouldn't respond either. How many game forums have we seen hit by jackals trying to tell the designers HOW they should make their game. Heck here, the implication is HOW they should code thier game. It irritates me to no end but I also find it somewhat amusing.

I count 10 people or so in this thread calling the system "broken" "show stopper" "ill conceived" etc. I understand the design, I like the design, and I want it to stay like it is. Let them fix the bugs and give us the multitude of enhancements they always do and most of us will only get happier. With one exception, I sympathize with those upset over this part of the game. You certainly have a right to your opinion and I'm sorry if this renders the game unplayable for you.

_____________________________

"Order AP Hill to prepare for battle" -- Stonewall Jackson

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 561
RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 4:15:42 AM   
ZOOMIE1980

 

Posts: 1284
Joined: 4/9/2004
Status: offline
quote:


All i've seen you do is talk. Gary and Mike walk the walk. You asked for the source code, which if you were the great designer you say you are, you would know that such a request is unreasonable and is not something that is done on the fly to persons outside of the employ of the company in question. You then asked me why were formulae posted in some of the old SSI 8bit games but not now. I commented. It was not meant to be an insult but a simple statement of fact though admitedly you do provide a convienient example nor have you denied on other threads that you bash Gary pretty hard in your infinite wisdom. My thoughts may be wrong. You are free to take em or leave em.


I have probably written and designed as much software in my day as either of those two. And done so, in quite likely a hell of a lot more disciplines, industries, platforms, and programming languages, than they have. I have walked plenty of walks to the degree I have made a pretty good living doing it. And your comment was indeed intended to be a total insult. If you think otherwise you nothing more than liar and you know it.

I bash Gary sometimes, because in all the hero worship that goes on around this Matrix organization and the posters that post here, sometimes developers like him NEED bashing from someone. If not him, directly, then his groupie worshipers who can see no fault no matter what. And that doesn't just come from me. That comes from people over the past 20 years that have worked and dealt with him as well. I also sing the man's praises in what he does well. I am, if nothing else, fair and balanced. We all have professional deficiencies, so does he. And if given the chance, he'd very likely enumerate those.

quote:


The Internet is indeed a wonderful font for the exchange of ideas. But every side has it's dark cloud. That dark cloud is that every would be programmer/designer/etc etc comes out of the woodwork with their idea on how things should be.


Well there's your problem right there. I view that as a MAJOR PLUS about forums like this. Thank God, they do. We'd still be back in the DOS days of game development..... Oh, I forgot, the code is essentially just that.... Oh well.....


quote:


Given all that and the time contraints involved....i can understand how Mike and Gary would not have time to wax poetic on why they do what they do, nor do i fault them if they abstain. I think Matrix and 2b3's record for allowing the input of creative ideas and adjustments speaks for itself. But everyone isn't going to get everything they want.


When I post techie design thoughts I never expect them to respond. I don't expect them to rewrite WitP using an OO design. But I do expect that somewhere along the line, someone that matters and can understand the points, reads it, and pockets it away as a possible future idea. And if that happens, then those kinds of posts have served their purpose. what YOU think about them is totally IRRELEVANT.

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 562
RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 4:18:15 AM   
ZOOMIE1980

 

Posts: 1284
Joined: 4/9/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

Bull. People have offered "whole" solutions which you havnt said a word about while you kept on claming all we want is a force of the best type of plane.


Nope, not a single solution in this thread that addresses historic controls. Not one.

The closest that anything comes is charging PP for it. Thats a minor counter weight to slow it down.

It does not address whether Japan could historically produce the aircraft in the first place.

Sorry, I can't find my Settlers to send them out of harvest more gold so I can buy better aircraft ... oops, wrong game.


There's plenty of Settlers. We call them aircraft production factories devoted to research.... the fact you have yet to seem to think you have seen no solutions is not surprising in the least. This thread is FULL of them. Of course you have to be able to read and comprehend to see that...

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 563
RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 4:26:48 AM   
joliverlay

 

Posts: 635
Joined: 1/28/2003
Status: offline
Mr. Frag:

I do not feel you responed to my post listing specific ideas. I'll try again with some details. I'm starting with the simple idea that says let players change aircraft at will. I start here not because it is historical, but because I belive it could be implemented with very little change in the computer code. I then make suggestions to add layers of realism with the idea of accepting those that can easily be coded. I'll try again with more detail. The added constraints after the baisc anything goes is as follows:

1. Change aircraft only within services. This should be historically acceptable.
2. Change aircraft only within same type. Ditto on history.
3. Change aircraft only with same number of engines. Ditto on history.
4. Allow unlimited downgrades to older types. Ditto on history
5. Decrease the number of units produced by a very large factor for more advance planes. 5 Nates = 4 Oscars = 3 Tonys = 2 Franks = 1 uber weapon. I expect the effect here would not be massive use of uber planes. What would happen is a shift towards planes with a good cost performance ratio. This feals historical. Japan could have obted to make fewer planes of higher quaility. The limiting factor was a DESIRE no have large numbers rather than higher quality. This COULD have been changed.
6. Decrease the number of planes produced per level of industry by a second factor that makes 100 units more than 10 times more costly than 10 units. This encourages production of several general lines of aircraft.

This is similar in EFFECT to what happens in BTR. As german I can't build all ME-262s because they are so expensive, so I build fewer. In fact I build LOADs of FW-190As because of their PRICE to PERFROMANCE ratio. Same for Japanese. I agree the could not have made all UBER PLANES, but they could have made a few and also shifted a fair amount of Oscar production to another mode like say Tony.

Finally, if you dont like that do it this way. Allow player to change squadrons with some set of rules, but limit changes as follows. First squadron to use non-historical aircraft pays 100 pps. Second squadron pays 200. Third squadron pays 400. Fourth 800 etc.

Finally. The last option is to control aircraft product more as BTR does. Require different versions of the engines for advanced designes, and make the more advanced engines very very hard to build. You can choose to do it, but you get very few planes. Also, you have to retool engines as well as airframes. This leads to NO ENGINE PRODUCTION. Want to make it real fun. Make the advanced engines cost more to repair, retool, or simply require more heavy industry for each.

There are many, many ways to give some flexability and yet make the Japanese sacrifice the same things they would have in real life. Regardless of what you say, I have not heard anyone say why the Japanese could not have changed 1, 2, 3 or perhaps 4 additional oscar squadrons to some other type.

Is this specific and historical enough?

Thank you for your attention.

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 564
RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 4:32:10 AM   
ZOOMIE1980

 

Posts: 1284
Joined: 4/9/2004
Status: offline
quote:


Excellent post Nik. I noticed Zoom didn't or wouldn't respond either. How many game forums have we seen hit by jackals trying to tell the designers HOW they should make their game. Heck here, the implication is HOW they should code thier game. It irritates me to no end but I also find it somewhat amusing.


Try getting some real WORK done? Then getting something eat, going to the store to get replace and empty print cartridge....you know....life.

It doesn't take a software professional to see some fundemental flaws in a basic design decision that make no logical sense. Such as and aircraft deployment system that is supported by a contradictory aircraft production system. So poorly put together that we a 20 page thread devoted to it. Now if that makes me a "Jackal", fine, I like jackals. Crafty little things...

quote:


I count 10 people or so in this thread calling the system "broken" "show stopper" "ill conceived" etc. I understand the design, I like the design, and I want it to stay like it is. Let them fix the bugs and give us the multitude of enhancements they always do and most of us will only get happier. With one exception, I sympathize with those upset over this part of the game. You certainly have a right to your opinion and I'm sorry if this renders the game unplayable for you.


Great, so YOU like it. BFD. I'm very glad you "understand" and like a deployment design that has nothing to do with the supporting production system design. Guess you don't make a living designing software....

I don't really care which way they come down on this thing, if they ever do. But leaving it the way it is is probably not going to down with side very well.... They either give players full control over production and deployment or they don't. One way or the other. But NOT halfway down the middle...... That's why we are now in our 20th page here.

(in reply to Caltone)
Post #: 565
RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 4:44:18 AM   
tsimmonds


Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline
quote:

what YOU think about them is totally IRRELEVANT.

Why do you have to drag me into this thread again?

Since I am here, My $0.03: the only post in this whole thread that is irrefutable is this one:
quote:

Original: Warspite
The argument that to change it would make it unhistorical is wrong because its not historical now. Here is a list of fighters and the Sentais that used them. Bold are sentais that upgraded from Nates and Red from Hayabusas.

Nate equipped Sentais = 1, 4, 9, 11, 13, 18, 21, 24, 33, 50, 54, 59, 63, 64, 70, 77, 78, 85, 87, 144, 246.
Hayabusa equipped Sentais = 1, 11, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 30, 31, 33, 48, 50, 54, 59, 63, 64, 65, 71, 72, 73, 77, 101, 102, 103, 104, 112, 203, 204, 248.

Shoki equipped Sentais = 9, 22, 29, 47, 85, 87, 246.
Hien equipped Sentais = 17, 18, 19, 23, 26, 28, 37, 55, 56, 59, 65, 68, 78, 105, 244
Hayate equipped Sentais = 1, 11, 13, 14, 20, 22, 25, 29, 47, 50, 51, 52, 64, 71, 72, 73, 85, 101, 102, 103, 104, 111, 112, 200, 246.
Only 2 Sentais operated the Randy

Okay it didn't keep my colours or bold face from my word document I created, nor allow me to attach it, so here is what you have left over after the upgrades:

Nate equipped Sentais = 4, 70, 78, 144.
Hayabusa equipped Sentais = 21, 24, 30, 31, 33, 48, 54, 63, 77, 203, 204.

We can see that the upgrade paths in the game are meaningless anyway, as there are no where near 34 groups of Hayabusas in WW2 nor anything like 12 Ki-102, and as we can see most surviving Sentais were equiped with the Frank. Its wrong now so whats the deal with letting us use what we build.


All the rest ranges from debatable to nonsense, but if these sentais were actually equipped with these aircraft during the war, why in the world can we not upgrade them like this in the game?

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to ZOOMIE1980)
Post #: 566
RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 8:23:09 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980


I have probably written and designed as much software in my day as either of those two. And done so, in quite likely a hell of a lot more disciplines, industries, platforms, and programming languages, than they have. I have walked plenty of walks to the degree I have made a pretty good living doing it. And your comment was indeed intended to be a total insult. If you think otherwise you nothing more than liar and you know it.



Prove it. Where's your superior wargaming design. We are all still waiting.

quote:


I bash Gary sometimes, because in all the hero worship that goes on around this Matrix organization and the posters that post here, sometimes developers like him NEED bashing from someone. If not him, directly, then his groupie worshipers who can see no fault no matter what. And that doesn't just come from me. That comes from people over the past 20 years that have worked and dealt with him as well. I also sing the man's praises in what he does well. I am, if nothing else, fair and balanced. We all have professional deficiencies, so does he. And if given the chance, he'd very likely enumerate those.



Though the term has been much abused here......"straw man" I have seen little evidence of hero worship on this board....certainly not on this thread. This is simply an excuse for someone like yourself to make alot of noise without having to put your money where your mouth is
quote:



Well there's your problem right there. I view that as a MAJOR PLUS about forums like this. Thank God, they do. We'd still be back in the DOS days of game development..... Oh, I forgot, the code is essentially just that.... Oh well.....


We are again, still waiting for your superior approach. Put up.......or shut up.

quote:


When I post techie design thoughts I never expect them to respond.


I agree with you here. Were i them, i wouldn't respond either.

< Message edited by Nikademus -- 8/13/2004 6:23:48 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to ZOOMIE1980)
Post #: 567
RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 8:39:26 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Caltone


Excellent post Nik. I noticed Zoom didn't or wouldn't respond either. How many game forums have we seen hit by jackals trying to tell the designers HOW they should make their game. Heck here, the implication is HOW they should code thier game. It irritates me to no end but I also find it somewhat amusing.

I count 10 people or so in this thread calling the system "broken" "show stopper" "ill conceived" etc. I understand the design, I like the design, and I want it to stay like it is. Let them fix the bugs and give us the multitude of enhancements they always do and most of us will only get happier. With one exception, I sympathize with those upset over this part of the game. You certainly have a right to your opinion and I'm sorry if this renders the game unplayable for you.


thx. I dont have a problem with constructive critisism or the putting forth of new ideas.....lord knows i've put forward enough myself. It does get a little annoying when an item of controversey is used as a vehicle for personal promotion.

_____________________________


(in reply to Caltone)
Post #: 568
RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 9:16:38 AM   
Caltone


Posts: 651
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: Raleigh, NC USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

quote:


Excellent post Nik. I noticed Zoom didn't or wouldn't respond either. How many game forums have we seen hit by jackals trying to tell the designers HOW they should make their game. Heck here, the implication is HOW they should code thier game. It irritates me to no end but I also find it somewhat amusing.


Try getting some real WORK done? Then getting something eat, going to the store to get replace and empty print cartridge....you know....life.

It doesn't take a software professional to see some fundemental flaws in a basic design decision that make no logical sense. Such as and aircraft deployment system that is supported by a contradictory aircraft production system. So poorly put together that we a 20 page thread devoted to it. Now if that makes me a "Jackal", fine, I like jackals. Crafty little things...

quote:


I count 10 people or so in this thread calling the system "broken" "show stopper" "ill conceived" etc. I understand the design, I like the design, and I want it to stay like it is. Let them fix the bugs and give us the multitude of enhancements they always do and most of us will only get happier. With one exception, I sympathize with those upset over this part of the game. You certainly have a right to your opinion and I'm sorry if this renders the game unplayable for you.


Great, so YOU like it. BFD. I'm very glad you "understand" and like a deployment design that has nothing to do with the supporting production system design. Guess you don't make a living designing software....

I don't really care which way they come down on this thing, if they ever do. But leaving it the way it is is probably not going to down with side very well.... They either give players full control over production and deployment or they don't. One way or the other. But NOT halfway down the middle...... That's why we are now in our 20th page here.


Zoom if nothing else, you never cease to amaze. Might we ask ourselves that if we constantly have to remind everyone how "double super duper utmost" overqualified we are, then maybe we have some issues outside of discussing game mechanics?

Just some food for thought

_____________________________

"Order AP Hill to prepare for battle" -- Stonewall Jackson

(in reply to ZOOMIE1980)
Post #: 569
RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 8/13/2004 9:33:37 AM   
ZOOMIE1980

 

Posts: 1284
Joined: 4/9/2004
Status: offline
quote:


Prove it. Where's your superior wargaming design. We are all still waiting.

Wargame designs or not, I have designed and written more software in more disciplines over the past 25 years than probably all the Matrix programmers COMBINED. I've design and written major components for textile manufacturing, accounting, inventory control, travel industry reservations, SS7, TCAP, INAP telephony protocols, financial settlement systems (if you use an ATM card you are excercising code I have either designed or written), if you fly a commercial airline the weather reports your pilots are using on your flight are provided by an FAA system I designed the database for, if you have health insurance, the financial transaction software probably contains routines I have either written or designed. I am fluent in COBAL, Fortran, C, C++, Pascal, TAL, Java and scripting languages like Python, Perl, and Visual Basic. I am an MCSE, and a certiified Oracle DBA. I know HTML, and XML like the back of my hand. Is that enough for you??? When it comes to software design and application programming, I basically been there, done that. And that INCLUDES battle simulations.

quote:


Though the term has been much abused here......"straw man" I have seen little evidence of hero worship on this board....certainly not on this thread. This is simply an excuse for someone like yourself to make alot of noise without having to put your money where your mouth is


You can start with the groupie/worship thread still on page one and those assinie girlie bowing emoticons that look like more like a pack of teenage girls on a figure skating fan forum. As for my "money". Well my money is essentially my TIME. And I have devoted many years to the development of my own personally support libraries to begin launching many of my ideas. And I do intend to start investing money within the next two years in the venture. When WitP counting UV dev time took three dedicated programers and a dozen or more support folks over five years to get out the door well, one man working alone, just might take a while to produce a primative prototype.

But rest ABSOLUTELY ASSURED, Object oriented design coupled with client server architectures are the FUTURE of turn based wargaming. And those that don't get that are doomed to eventual FAILURE. Take that to the BANK. Same for any Matrix personnel following this or any of their partners. It is ONLY viable architecture and design paradigm that can take the genre to its next level.


quote:


We are again, still waiting for your superior approach. Put up.......or shut up.


Well then, you have no more capability to read for comprehension than Frag when he gets locked up in his philopsophies. I have expressed in DETAIL my design ideas on here and elsewhere, REPEATEDLY. I guess they are beyond you intellectual level, it seems. Since you cannot even remember anything about them.

quote:


I agree with you here. Were i them, i wouldn't respond either.


Ostriches are really UGLY birds. Keep that head in the sand, Nikki baby.

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 570
Page:   <<   < prev  17 18 [19] 20 21   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Aircraft Upgrades Page: <<   < prev  17 18 [19] 20 21   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.797