RE: Surface Combat Sux

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: Surface Combat Sux

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: Surface Combat Sux

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/7/2004 9:27:03 PM

Tristanjohn

Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Montrose

It could be solved by: 1) Dropping DLs as a targetting determinant. Or 2) Checking for sunk ships more often.

Not just sunk but damaged. How many hits should it require on a TK or AK before a captain moves on to a new target of opportunity? Not so many I think.

Re playtesters and their all-too-predictable alibis: some are worse than others in this regard, but it basically boils down to wanting to be "part of the action" regardless the ultimate cost. I mean how many testers are willing to speak their minds with the threat of "dismissal" hanging over their heads? Not many is the answer. Indeed, how many testers are likely to be plucked from the crowd if they're constantly writing critical posts in the forums? Not many, again. And thus the tester pool by definition tends to be "happy" and "cordial," it becomes a pool that "gets along" but not a pool at all necessarily of the critical mind bent required to really and actually put the product at question through grueling paces.

End result: you're looking at it.

Another old story.

(in reply to Montrose)

Post #: 121

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/7/2004 9:33:04 PM

Tristanjohn

Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

The whole "High-DL-Ship-becomes-Shell-Magnet" phenomenon is not entirely without merit. In thinking of the various night actions during the war, some facts stand out:

a ship will never become a target, if it is not spotted.

a ship which is afire is a much better target than one that is not.

in the early days of radar fire control systems, there were several actions in which one Japanese ship (the one that produced the largest or the nearest radar return--Takanami at Tassafaronga, Niizuki at Second Kula Gulf, Jintsu at Kolombangara, Sendai at Empress Augusta Bay) became the target of the entire American formation, while the rest of the ships launched torpedoes and then evaded, or at least escaped immediate attention.

DL is not entirely bogus, not in low visibility anyway. Just worth noting.

That isn't the argument here. Neither is it what's happening.

Warships that overtake a merchie or two will put a couple of shells into the enemy then close for the kill (assuming those couple of shells haven't already achieved that goal). Then the warships will move on searching for more enemy vessels. The warships will not stand off at maximum range with bare sighting capability and pummel said enemy vessels all day long with everything they've got. And that's what happens in the game and has happened since forever.

It's a glaring model mistake that needs to be corrected. What could be more clear?

(in reply to tsimmonds)

Post #: 122

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/7/2004 9:39:19 PM

Ron Saueracker

Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

The whole "High-DL-Ship-becomes-Shell-Magnet" phenomenon is not entirely without merit. In thinking of the various night actions during the war, some facts stand out:

a ship will never become a target, if it is not spotted.

a ship which is afire is a much better target than one that is not.

in the early days of radar fire control systems, there were several actions in which one Japanese ship (the one that produced the largest or the nearest radar return--Takanami at Tassafaronga, Niizuki at Second Kula Gulf, Jintsu at Kolombangara, Sendai at Empress Augusta Bay) became the target of the entire American formation, while the rest of the ships launched torpedoes and then evaded, or at least escaped immediate attention.

DL is not entirely bogus, not in low visibility anyway. Just worth noting.

As you pointed out, you are looking at radar targetted ships in these examples, and I believe this is the effect the design is trying to achieve. Noble and justifiable aim. It just seems they have painted everything with the same brush. This happens when ships close to within visual sighting range at night or daylight. Navies did not train incessantly just so that same training, rules of engagement, fire discipline etc goes out the window at the first sign of the enemy.

I also believe that ships in ones friendly TF not being sighted when on the attack has much to do with the desire to model ships with no or poor radar, much like Missisippi and Pennsylvania at Surigao Strait. If so, it is also a case of painting with too broad a brush, as in my case, one of the most modern ships with best night capability was the one which was not sighted/engaged (the POW).

_____________________________

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to tsimmonds)

Post #: 123

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/7/2004 9:47:33 PM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

quote:

ORIGINAL: Montrose

It could be solved by: 1) Dropping DLs as a targetting determinant. Or 2) Checking for sunk ships more often.

Not just sunk but damaged. How many hits should it require on a TK or AK before a captain moves on to a new target of opportunity? Not so many I think.

Re playtesters and their all-too-predictable alibis: some are worse than others in this regard, but it basically boils down to wanting to be "part of the action" regardless the ultimate cost. I mean how many testers are willing to speak their minds with the threat of "dismissal" hanging over their heads? Not many is the answer. Indeed, how many testers are likely to be plucked from the crowd if they're constantly writing critical posts in the forums? Not many, again. And thus the tester pool by definition tends to be "happy" and "cordial," it becomes a pool that "gets along" but not a pool at all necessarily of the critical mind bent required to really and actually put the product at question through grueling paces.

End result: you're looking at it.

Another old story.

"Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam" or in your case
"Ceterum censeo Matrix esse delendam"

In fact a number of the testers have been those who were questioning or critical. Mike Scholl was offered a spot but was unable to devote the time. The tester/developer debates do not take place in the public forum. Once more for those unable to see the job of a tester is not to design the game but report on how it works compared to how the designer intends it to work and report ways to make it do other then intended.

The designers read these boards. They also see the AAR where quite often every combat report is published.

So we have the testers with their all too predictable alibis and the same old grumblers complaining about every aspect of the game. In between are the folks happy to own the game and too busy playing to hang out around here and read the bickering.
The designers know exactly what results are being produced. Where they are bugs they are fixing them. Where they are not what they intended they are fixing them, where they are exactly what they intended they are leaving them alone. All the testers are players as well. I do not understand how you think a tester would benifit from defending the game if it was wrong. The game is released. Someday soon there will be no more changes made by the designers only edits in the DB by players. Why would a tester not want the game to be right? Believe me nothing has appeared in the public forum that the designers do not hear about in private.

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Tristanjohn)

Post #: 124

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/7/2004 9:50:10 PM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, How many times in WW2 did radar equiped ships direct fire at friendly ships?

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 125

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/7/2004 9:50:34 PM

Tristanjohn

Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline

That's all wonderful on its face, Magami, but my point still stands. Been there, got the T-shirt.

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 126

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/7/2004 9:52:12 PM

Tristanjohn

Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, How many times in WW2 did radar equiped ships direct fire at friendly ships?

I don't know and that's not in the model, either.

Ought to be, though.

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 127

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/7/2004 10:15:37 PM

tsimmonds

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

quote:

As you pointed out, you are looking at radar targetted ships in these examples, and I believe this is the effect the design is trying to achieve. Noble and justifiable aim. It just seems they have painted everything with the same brush. This happens when ships close to within visual sighting range at night or daylight. Navies did not train incessantly just so that same training, rules of engagement, fire discipline etc goes out the window at the first sign of the enemy.

Exactly so. We seem to see during daytime combat, a DL-based effect that we might expect to be an important factor at night, but much less so during the daytime.

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 128

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/7/2004 10:45:11 PM

Theng

Posts: 259
Joined: 12/13/2002
Status: offline

Okay. Here are my 2 cents. The way the game simulates the enagement of a large surface task force against a convoy is correct.

Just look at Convoy PQ-17. Standard allied modus operandus in the event that the convoy is attacked by a surface TF is to disperse to minimize your losses (so yes, 60 mile hexagon is a lot of territory) The PQ-17 was sunk by subs that took advantage of the dispersed convoy without escorts. Also surface TFs tend to stay together as a cohesive unit, which is impeding their ability to cover all 9352.8 square miles of the hexagon.

The only thing worse for the career of a naval TF commander than not sinking an undefended convoy is to run into an enemy TF that sinks your dispersed TF because you went hunting for an "undefended convoy."

_____________________________

Molon Labe!

(in reply to tsimmonds)

Post #: 129

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/7/2004 10:57:17 PM

Tristanjohn

Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Xian

Okay. Here are my 2 cents. The way the game simulates the enagement of a large surface task force against a convoy is correct.

Just look at Convoy PQ-17. Standard allied modus operandus in the event that the convoy is attacked by a surface TF is to disperse to minimize your losses (so yes, 60 mile hexagon is a lot of territory) The PQ-17 was sunk by subs that took advantage of the dispersed convoy without escorts. Also surface TFs tend to stay together as a cohesive unit, which is impeding their ability to cover all 9352.8 square miles of the hexagon.

The only thing worse for the career of a naval TF commander than not sinking an undefended convoy is to run into an enemy TF that sinks your dispersed TF because you went hunting for an "undefended convoy."

That would apply some of the time, not all of the time.

(in reply to Theng)

Post #: 130

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/7/2004 11:03:49 PM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, The complaints only occur some of the time not all of the time. No one who thinks it is working posts complaints. I posted a Allied TF against Japanese Transport engaement in this thread that has been ignored since I posted it. The USN scored hits on every single ship in the Japanese TF resulting in the loss of half the ships. So it is nonsense to claim the surface TF never clobber transports. Sometimes they don't and people just close their eyes to why.

I've posted many AAR over the last year that as Japan often contained examples of Allied TF intercepting my transports in all sea hexes. I've lost more transports to allied surface forces then to allied air. It is not some new discovery here that "ALL surface TF only get 1 or 2 transports" because it is not true. Just start reading old AAR and you will find quite early in the war numerous encounters between my transports and enemy surface ships.

< Message edited by Mogami -- 9/7/2004 4:07:59 PM >

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Tristanjohn)

Post #: 131

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/7/2004 11:06:02 PM

Bradley7735

Posts: 2073
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline

I think it would apply almost all of the time. Only in those rare one in a million (Midway, Savo, etc) chances would a surface force wipe out a transport TF.

Does anyone have a historic example of an entire transport TF being wiped out by Surface forces? All the examples I know of are from LBA (Bismark Sea, Guadalcanal (the battle when the Japs beached their transports)). I know of no surface battle where significant percentage of losses happened to the transports. In any ocean, by any navy.

bc

(in reply to Tristanjohn)

Post #: 132

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/7/2004 11:13:53 PM

Tankerace

Posts: 6400
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline

Scharnhorst and Gneisnau in 1940 knocked off 3 and 5 ship convoys, I know that. But as to sinking an entire 10+ convoy, no example comes to my mind.

_____________________________

Designer of War Plan Orange
Allied Naval OOBer of Admiral's Edition
Naval Team Lead for War in the Med

Author of Million-Dollar Barrage: American Field Artillery in the Great War coming soon from OU Press.

(in reply to Bradley7735)

Post #: 133

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/7/2004 11:20:17 PM

tsimmonds

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

That's because the (IRL inevitable) covering force always spoiled the fun. IRL there were a number of close calls in which a potential interception of a convoy of transports was foiled by its covering force of surface ships. This is what should almost always happen. If the player should provide no such covering force however....

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to Tankerace)

Post #: 134

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/8/2004 12:09:13 AM

Tristanjohn

Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, The complaints only occur some of the time not all of the time. No one who thinks it is working posts complaints. I posted a Allied TF against Japanese Transport engaement in this thread that has been ignored since I posted it. The USN scored hits on every single ship in the Japanese TF resulting in the loss of half the ships. So it is nonsense to claim the surface TF never clobber transports. Sometimes they don't and people just close their eyes to why.

I've posted many AAR over the last year that as Japan often contained examples of Allied TF intercepting my transports in all sea hexes. I've lost more transports to allied surface forces then to allied air. It is not some new discovery here that "ALL surface TF only get 1 or 2 transports" because it is not true. Just start reading old AAR and you will find quite early in the war numerous encounters between my transports and enemy surface ships.

You seem to have the wrong guy here. I didn't start this thread. As a matter of fact I noted that in UV IJN warships more than once cleaned house on my unprotected merchantmen in port.

My only problem in that regard is that they did so after engaging my own warship screen, and furthermore did so in such "burning" condition as to render the action more than a little ahistoric (per the rules cloaking bombardment TFs more or less invisible to potential retaliatory strikes by LBA).

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 135

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/8/2004 2:40:33 AM

Ron Saueracker

Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

I think it would apply almost all of the time. Only in those rare one in a million (Midway, Savo, etc) chances would a surface force wipe out a transport TF.

Does anyone have a historic example of an entire transport TF being wiped out by Surface forces? All the examples I know of are from LBA (Bismark Sea, Guadalcanal (the battle when the Japs beached their transports)). I know of no surface battle where significant percentage of losses happened to the transports. In any ocean, by any navy.

bc

Tarigo, Lupo and Duisburg convoys during the battle of the Mediterannean. Complete annihilation of two of the three convoys. The Lupo convoy saw some serious confusion on the part of the British, but even in this case, a single cruiser (Orion) manage to destroy 10 of the enemy transports.

_____________________________

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Bradley7735)

Post #: 136

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/8/2004 3:36:25 AM

Montrose

Posts: 72
Joined: 8/30/2003
From: Gloucstershire UK
Status: offline

Ok Mogami, you just blew any credibility you had in this thread at least.

quote:

the same old grumblers complaining about every aspect of the game

Not once in this thread have I seen anyone who does not agree with the way it has been decided to resolve surface actions 'grumble about every other aspect'. Indeed, they (and me) have gone out of their way to say what an otherwise fine game this is. I have recommended this game to others who bought it, and there is a small amount of customer care to be done even for me.

Perhaps you should bear in mind that your knee-jerk defensive response to any kind of criticism of this game is likely to alienate any number of people. It can be seen as representative of the ethos of the company, and I've seen it with other game companies, particularly Talonsoft. It wasn't pretty. Any company which refuses to accept reasoned, well meaning and constructive criticism could go the same way if the fanbase loses heart.

So let's ditch the defensive attitudes and work together with this.

_____________________________

I spend my time building castles in the air, but in the end all of them, and I, blow away in the wind.

- Don Juan

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 137

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/8/2004 3:58:10 AM

Oleg Mastruko

Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
Tarigo, Lupo and Duisburg convoys during the battle of the Mediterannean. Complete annihilation of two of the three convoys. The Lupo convoy saw some serious confusion on the part of the British, but even in this case, a single cruiser (Orion) manage to destroy 10 of the enemy transports.

Those were Italians - sure you don't want to see that modelled in WITP?

Weren't those "10 enemy transports" in case of Lupo actually "caiques", ie. very small coastal craft akin to barges in WITP? And are you sure it was only Orion on the British side, not the whole cruiser squadron?

Cruiser squadron vs. lone DE + 10x AG barges is verymuch different than CA vs. DE + 10x AK.

In that action Lupo was hit with no less than 18 6in shells - another brave escort taking punishment trying to save the conwoy, just like those PGs in WITP people complain so much about.

Duisburg - here we have defensive action that is not simply bad, it's embarassing for the Italians. Perhaps such embarassments should be modeled in WITP, but then you'd have even bigger protests from the players who got "Duisburg-ed" while their ships buzzed around too afraid to shoot. In the Pacific such escort embarassments were rare, maybe they have to be modelled for UV-Med?

O.

_____________________________

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 138

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/8/2004 4:04:02 AM

Tristanjohn

Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Montrose

Ok Mogami, you just blew any credibility you had in this thread at least.

quote:

the same old grumblers complaining about every aspect of the game

Not once in this thread have I seen anyone who does not agree with the way it has been decided to resolve surface actions 'grumble about every other aspect'. Indeed, they (and me) have gone out of their way to say what an otherwise fine game this is. I have recommended this game to others who bought it, and there is a small amount of customer care to be done even for me.

Perhaps you should bear in mind that your knee-jerk defensive response to any kind of criticism of this game is likely to alienate any number of people. It can be seen as representative of the ethos of the company, and I've seen it with other game companies, particularly Talonsoft. It wasn't pretty. Any company which refuses to accept reasoned, well meaning and constructive criticism could go the same way if the fanbase loses heart.

So let's ditch the defensive attitudes and work together with this.

Actually Matrix and Grigsby have good (make that stellar) reputations for supporting their stuff, so I doubt you'll see a "Talonsoft" sort of reaction here. Of course were Joel in complete control that might be another story. . . .

Glad to hear you speak up anyway. Always good to encounter an occasional poster with some fire in his belly and a healthy disinclination to just go meekly along with whatever Mogami happens to feel like babbling today.

(in reply to Montrose)

Post #: 139

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/8/2004 4:13:54 AM

Oleg Mastruko

Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

Geez, Mog, these n00bz got cocky lately. Issue that call to arms already, and your loyal Praetorian Guard will enter the fray

People, Mogami is not only the living legend of this board, he is spewing *excellent* WITP advice left and right, for those who WISH, and have enough patience to actually READ his posts. Oh, and for those that actually PLAY the game, of course. 80% of my personal "tips and tricks" files for WITP and UV are made of his posts. His posts are the most useful on the board. MVP - is that the term from NBA basketball games, most valuable player?

His last few replies were spot on. Maybe you should read them again before flaming the man?

<sychopantic mode off>

O.

< Message edited by Oleg Mastruko -- 9/8/2004 3:15:35 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Tristanjohn)

Post #: 140

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/8/2004 4:17:41 AM

Tristanjohn

Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

Geez, Mog, these n00bz got cocky lately. Issue that call to arms already, and your loyal Praetorian Guard will enter the fray

People, Mogami is not only the living legend of this board, he is spewing *excellent* WITP advice left and right, for those who WISH, and have enough patience to actually READ his posts. Oh, and for those that actually PLAY the game, of course. 80% of my personal "tips and tricks" files for WITP and UV are made of his posts. His posts are the most useful on the board. MVP - is that the term from NBA basketball games, most valuable player?

His last few replies were spot on. Maybe you should read them again before flaming the man?

<sychopantic mode off>

O.

Mogami The Legend often finds himself off base. He was off base this time and someone bothered to call him on it.

Look down fast, Oleg. Your slip is showing.

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)

Post #: 141

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/8/2004 4:24:48 AM

Oleg Mastruko

Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn
Mogami The Legend often finds himself off base. He was off base this time and someone bothered to call him on it.

Look down fast, Oleg. Your slip is showing.

LOL actually that was funny

I think the logical next step is we all start using the new kidz 1337 (elite) online l1N60 (lingo) - this thread already degenerated beyond the point of no return ("aircraft upgrades" anyone?).

O.

_____________________________

(in reply to Tristanjohn)

Post #: 142

Mogami: My public defense - 9/8/2004 4:41:11 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Montrose

Ok Mogami, you just blew any credibility you had in this thread at least.

quote:

the same old grumblers complaining about every aspect of the game

Not once in this thread have I seen anyone who does not agree with the way it has been decided to resolve surface actions 'grumble about every other aspect'. Indeed, they (and me) have gone out of their way to say what an otherwise fine game this is. I have recommended this game to others who bought it, and there is a small amount of customer care to be done even for me.

Perhaps you should bear in mind that your knee-jerk defensive response to any kind of criticism of this game is likely to alienate any number of people. It can be seen as representative of the ethos of the company, and I've seen it with other game companies, particularly Talonsoft. It wasn't pretty. Any company which refuses to accept reasoned, well meaning and constructive criticism could go the same way if the fanbase loses heart.

So let's ditch the defensive attitudes and work together with this.

Hi, Montrose well I disavow any connection to Matrix/2bt3 other then that as a player of their games and a tester. As a tester I report how the program performs.

I don't wish my comments to be perceived as knee jerk reactions to comments posted on this forum in that I much more comfortable answering simple questions about "How to" and not always becoming mired in "This sux" threads.

However to say you do not see the same people in this thread that you see in other threads means you have not read all the threads, been around very long, or have a short memory.

Not only do certain people post in the WITP threads because they have some unexplained beef with Joel Billings or Gary Grigsby they also post results as bugs that are not bugs and no matter who first posts an issue they are there to add the always present "the entire program was done wrong and is broke" point of view.

I am left with the unpleasant task of saying "no it is not broke. It works according to design. If you alter your playing behavior the results you post will not occur"

It is because other testers and myself are actively trying to find among all these post real issues that we have to respond. No real problem posted here in the public forum is ignored. No perceived problem posted here in the public forum is ignored.

I have to date never contradicted any claim made by a player without having examples from my own experience that were the opposite of those posted as problems and then only if I have in my own experience seen enough results for me to have a reasonable that that the posted results are "the normal results"

I have it seems gotten myself into a position I never sought and certainly do not desire.
(That of being perceived as some kind of defender of the Holy Grail or spokesperson for Matrix/2by3)

I began as an interested observer. I was invited to become a tester and I jumped at the chance. However I have always been an active player of UV and now WITP. It is in my own best interest to make both as good a game as I have the influence or power to do so but I think here on the public forums the number of my posts leads some to believe I have any special considerations or powers. I have no more then the newest member of the forum. The only thing I have more of is turn results produced by WITP.

I won't get into what I feel when someone after 10 or 20 turns tells me what the most common result produced by any set of circumstance in WITP is. Or 100 turns or 500 turns.

I have played WITP both sides from front and back invading Pearl Harbor sending every BB without escort against 40 PT 500 Nates versus 500 Iron Dogs and posted most of the results. When in these threads in the last few weeks someone posts "This always happens and it is BS" I post a result from a game that was produced that day that is opposite the posted "Always" result.

I don't post my opinion here I post results from PBEM games.

If anyone or side is being one sided or defensive it is the side that maintains its position after being shown an example produced under normal game play conditions with no advance notice that such a result was desired and still maintains it is the game that produces their poor results. We began a thread for PT results. Have you viewed it? Are the claims of "uber" PT being proved. Here the claim is surface TF will not damage transports beyond 1 or 2 per engagement. I posted a result from a 4 ship surface force attacking a transport TF and hitting everyship and sinking half but I am the one being defensive?

I post what I post when I post based on my results from running the WITP program. I don't invent my results and I don't deny other persons results. I only try to find out why there are differences.

I don't post my questions on the public forum. If I think I know the answer to a problem I post. If I want to understand exactly how a result was obtained I post.

Anyone who claims they know what I post in private, or in emails is talking out a rear orifice.

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Tristanjohn)

Post #: 143

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/8/2004 5:01:05 AM

Tristanjohn

Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn
Mogami The Legend often finds himself off base. He was off base this time and someone bothered to call him on it.

Look down fast, Oleg. Your slip is showing.

LOL actually that was funny

I think the logical next step is we all start using the new kidz 1337 (elite) online l1N60 (lingo) - this thread already degenerated beyond the point of no return ("aircraft upgrades" anyone?).

O.

I'm glad you took that in the vein it was intended.

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)

Post #: 144

RE: Mogami: My public defense - 9/8/2004 5:08:17 AM

Tristanjohn

Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline

Mogami, the poster who criticized you stood on solid ground with respect to the remark you wrote re "complainers." Much of what you write, though, has merit. You seem like a pretty good guy. Why not just ligten up a little and stop seeing all these conspiracies?

As for Joel: either you haven't been around (as you write of others) or have that same "short memory" you accuse those same people of having. When it comes to after-market support Joel's record is nothing short of horrendous, and that's a matter of public record.

As for Gary: I'm on record giving him highest marks across the board for designing fun games. I'd cry if he retired. And Matrix always gets high marks from me for general support and the willingness to go the extra yard. Couldn't fault them.

Again, why not get off your high horse and stop preaching and talking down to folks? People pay cash for these games and deserve the right to complain when they see fit. Many of the complaints have merit, all are well meant I'm sure. Learn to live with that.

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 145

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/8/2004 5:09:46 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

Geez, Mog, these n00bz got cocky lately. Issue that call to arms already, and your loyal Praetorian Guard will enter the fray

People, Mogami is not only the living legend of this board, he is spewing *excellent* WITP advice left and right, for those who WISH, and have enough patience to actually READ his posts. Oh, and for those that actually PLAY the game, of course. 80% of my personal "tips and tricks" files for WITP and UV are made of his posts. His posts are the most useful on the board. MVP - is that the term from NBA basketball games, most valuable player?

His last few replies were spot on. Maybe you should read them again before flaming the man?

<sychopantic mode off>

O.

Mogami The Legend often finds himself off base. He was off base this time and someone bothered to call him on it.

Look down fast, Oleg. Your slip is showing.

"I thought I'd begin a list of identified WitP playtesters who have fairly shown they are not well suited to test the product in question. Qualifications for this roll of "unqualifieds" are varied but basically it all boils down to a willingness to "get it right" and the God-blessed wherewithal to do so given the aforementioned good spirit"

10-26-2003 While it always bothered me you listed Mr Frag and Nik ahead of me. I only post this now because it seems there are persons reading the forum who are unaware of how long this has been going on. On 10-26-03 you had never seen a result produced by WITP except what was posted as a test . Your present posts are not a reflection of what WITP is now doing but a continued campaign that has been long running.
Montrose while any one issue might be first posted by someone new the "old hands" are always there to lend support without any results obtained on their own.

I admit I am somewhat wore out by it all. I feel we (I mean the people who honestly play WITP) are diverting energy from fixing items that are not producing desired results to fighting over results produced by single games under circumstance that are being claimed by those who never experiance them as normal. I am sorry if I can make this clear or if I sound like I am being testy or defensive. You must understand that whenever someone posts "This always happens" even where I have tested it before I go back once again and check. I then find the next encounter applicable from my own play (where a non tester is invovled) and post the result. If my result CONFIRMED the post I would still post it.

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Tristanjohn)

Post #: 146

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/8/2004 5:43:33 AM

RAM

Posts: 402
Joined: 5/1/2000
From: Bilbao,Vizcaya,Spain
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

When in these threads in the last few weeks someone posts "This always happens and it is BS" I post a result from a game that was produced that day that is opposite the posted "Always" result.

Mogami, I don't like to talk about what I don't really know, but so far in my campaign game I've had 8 surface combat encounters, 6 of them at night vs transport TF and have seen in all and every of them the same tendence to beat only the crap out of the already hit and burning ships unless any other ship takes the chance and fires back.

The other two were one a PT engagement (hard to extract opinions from this) and another night engagement of my BB TF vs a Surface Cruiser fleet , combat wich saw a japanese PG receive unholy ammounts of punishment while there were four japanese cruisers around perfectly visible in the TF screen, and so, for the commander of my TF . Even while two of those cruisers were hit several times, it was because they fired to my ships...as long as they kept silent and played the "good boy", they received no fire back so the good ole PG could be correctly punished.

Sorry, to see two full-fledged BBs firing at a PG which has received enough hits to already blown it to bits some ten times, while there are four Japanese CAs around isn't exactly my idea of "realistic" combat outcomes. Same with Transport TFs where only two ships are fired upon while most of the others can be perfectly seen by the commander (because their names are seen in the battle screen) who does nothing to hurt them too even while the targets being fired upon have already received enoug lead to send them to mars, and back.

You can post some results that says otherwise, I'm not going to refuse to read and aknowledge them for they are real and I'm sure that after some 20 surface battles I'll get one with a realistic set of engagements ,targetting and damage.
..
however in a realistic game the norm should be all of us reporting reports like the ones you post and the ones like the fights I'm (and many others) are describing, should be more or less rare.

If you're in a TF with 2 BBs, 1 CA, 4 CLs, 5 DDs and see a TF of a couple of PGs and 10 APs, in real life no commander would concentrate ALL his fire in those two PGs until they were blown to bits for good....several times.
Firstly he would concentrate most of his heavy fire in those ships to disable then, and spare some for the rest of the force. Secondly he would shift most of the fire devoted to the PGs to the transports as soon as it was clear the PGs were no more a threat: A PG is a small target and a worthless price. A big AP displacing many thousands tons which may be carrying troops for an invasion is a BIG and PRIORITIVE target and so as soon as the escorting ships were disabled (DISABLED, not SUNK) they should be fired upon.

None of those things are seen at this stage in WitP surface fights. At least I've not see them and as I said I've already run quite some surface-to-surface fights to make up my own mind about the subject.

I have no quarrel against Matrixgames nor Gary Grisby (all the opposite, I've had thousands of hours of fun playing PW and WIR, both the original and re-made Matrix version, enough to make me grateful to them forever) ,so this is no bashing. I've already stated in another post that I can live with the combat rules as they are now, and some other relatively minor gripes I have, for the rest of the game more than compensates it. In short, what I say is not said out of any kind of personal private frustration vs anyone or vs the game (which I find simply unbelievably good).

You can insist that it's correctly modelled based on a few ammount of examples you've posted. I insist that it's incorrectly modelled based in my own experience and what I've seen develop in front of my own eyes.

As you might understand my opinion is based on what I've seen in front of my screen which has made me shake my head in disbelief seven times in three days, and that you say that -sometimes- you get realistic results it's not gonna change it. It should't be -sometimes-. it should be -most of the times-.

As a bottom point I'll add that Nikademus has said that the combat vs the transport TFs thingie is being looked upon by matrix and that it will probably be modified to see better results.

You can keep on denying that the combat as it is now it's nearly faultless...if the programmers are looking at it so they can fix it, it is because they too think the surface combats usually render unrealistic results, and that the issue can be improved with a bit of tweaking. And if the programmers think that way any point you can make out of this, combat results aside, is pointless.

On a personal note, I've been for very little time around this board, but have read a lot of threads looking for tips to enhance my enjoyement of WitP playing, as well as some tips on how to better manage the enormous density and depth of the game. I've found a lot of posts posted by you in the meantime. I think you're a good poster of this forum because your contributions usually are -VERY- good, and I seek no quarrel at all, not I want this thread to be taken as an offense, at all. I just think that you're too much on the defensive on this issue trying to explain things that, honestly, I find undefensible.
WitP is EXTREMELY GOOD, but it ain't perfect (nothing in this life is)...and this issue is one of those which can be worked on to make the game a bit nearer perfection.

BTW I can see what do you mean when you talk about people talking $h1T about the game just for the sake of it, or because some private agendas against the developers. I understand you going defensive, but not to take your grease gun, get into the bunker and fight it until the last bullet is fired (to make a banzai charge later ;)), wich more or less summons your stance at this moment in this thread (at least from yours truly's eyes ;)).

_____________________________

RAM

"Look at me! look at me!!!

Not like that! NOT LIKE THAT!!!"

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 147

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/8/2004 6:04:52 AM

Tristanjohn

Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RAM

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

When in these threads in the last few weeks someone posts "This always happens and it is BS" I post a result from a game that was produced that day that is opposite the posted "Always" result.

Mogami, I don't like to talk about what I don't really know, but so far in my campaign game I've had 8 surface combat encounters, 6 of them at night vs transport TF and have seen in all and every of them the same tendence to beat only the crap out of the already hit and burning ships unless any other ship takes the chance and fires back.

The other two were one a PT engagement (hard to extract opinions from this) and another night engagement of my BB TF vs a Surface Cruiser fleet , combat wich saw a japanese PG receive unholy ammounts of punishment while there were four japanese cruisers around perfectly visible in the TF screen, and so, for the commander of my TF . Even while two of those cruisers were hit several times, it was because they fired to my ships...as long as they kept silent and played the "good boy", they received no fire back so the good ole PG could be correctly punished.

Sorry, to see two full-fledged BBs firing at a PG which has received enough hits to already blown it to bits some ten times, while there are four Japanese CAs around isn't exactly my idea of "realistic" combat outcomes. Same with Transport TFs where only two ships are fired upon while most of the others can be perfectly seen by the commander (because their names are seen in the battle screen) who does nothing to hurt them too even while the targets being fired upon have already received enoug lead to send them to mars, and back.

You can post some results that says otherwise, I'm not going to refuse to read and aknowledge them for they are real and I'm sure that after some 20 surface battles I'll get one with a realistic set of engagements ,targetting and damage.
..
however in a realistic game the norm should be all of us reporting reports like the ones you post and the ones like the fights I'm (and many others) are describing, should be more or less rare.

If you're in a TF with 2 BBs, 1 CA, 4 CLs, 5 DDs and see a TF of a couple of PGs and 10 APs, in real life no commander would concentrate ALL his fire in those two PGs until they were blown to bits for good....several times.
Firstly he would concentrate most of his heavy fire in those ships to disable then, and spare some for the rest of the force. Secondly he would shift most of the fire devoted to the PGs to the transports as soon as it was clear the PGs were no more a threat: A PG is a small target and a worthless price. A big AP displacing many thousands tons which may be carrying troops for an invasion is a BIG and PRIORITIVE target and so as soon as the escorting ships were disabled (DISABLED, not SUNK) they should be fired upon.

None of those things are seen at this stage in WitP surface fights. At least I've not see them and as I said I've already run quite some surface-to-surface fights to make up my own mind about the subject.

I have no quarrel against Matrixgames nor Gary Grisby (all the opposite, I've had thousands of hours of fun playing PW and WIR, both the original and re-made Matrix version, enough to make me grateful to them forever) ,so this is no bashing. I've already stated in another post that I can live with the combat rules as they are now, and some other relatively minor gripes I have, for the rest of the game more than compensates it. In short, what I say is not said out of any kind of personal private frustration vs anyone or vs the game (which I find simply unbelievably good).

You can insist that it's correctly modelled based on a few ammount of examples you've posted. I insist that it's incorrectly modelled based in my own experience and what I've seen develop in front of my own eyes.

As you might understand my opinion is based on what I've seen in front of my screen which has made me shake my head in disbelief seven times in three days, and that you say that -sometimes- you get realistic results it's not gonna change it. It should't be -sometimes-. it should be -most of the times-.

As a bottom point I'll add that Nikademus has said that the combat vs the transport TFs thingie is being looked upon by matrix and that it will probably be modified to see better results.

You can keep on denying that the combat as it is now it's nearly faultless...if the programmers are looking at it so they can fix it, it is because they too think the surface combats usually render unrealistic results, and that the issue can be improved with a bit of tweaking. And if the programmers think that way any point you can make out of this, combat results aside, is pointless.

On a personal note, I've been for very little time around this board, but have read a lot of threads looking for tips to enhance my enjoyement of WitP playing, as well as some tips on how to better manage the enormous density and depth of the game. I've found a lot of posts posted by you in the meantime. I think you're a good poster of this forum because your contributions usually are -VERY- good, and I seek no quarrel at all, not I want this thread to be taken as an offense, at all. I just think that you're too much on the defensive on this issue trying to explain things that, honestly, I find undefensible.
WitP is EXTREMELY GOOD, but it ain't perfect (nothing in this life is)...and this issue is one of those which can be worked on to make the game a bit nearer perfection.

BTW I can see what do you mean when you talk about people talking $h1T about the game just for the sake of it, or because some private agendas against the developers. I understand you going defensive, but not to take your grease gun, get into the bunker and fight it until the last bullet is fired (to make a banzai charge later ;)), wich more or less summons your stance at this moment in this thread (at least from yours truly's eyes ;)).

All well stated. Hear! Hear!

(in reply to RAM)

Post #: 148

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/8/2004 6:24:56 AM

denisonh

Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/21/2001
From: Upstate SC
Status: offline

I have to say that there needs to be some reexamination of the surface combat model.

But........

I dislike making "knee jerk" reaction changes to anecdotal evidence of particular "problems".

As someone who makes extensive use of surface combat, I endorse the OBJECTIVE analysis of the surface combat model with respect to all the pertinent factors affecting the outcome.

But to create a model that does nothing but satify the example of "I have more than you, then I should win" would do a great disservice to WitP (does Tassaforonga come to mind?)

Combat is anything but predictable. Modeling the CHAOS that is inherent in combat should be something that is not glossed over or eliminated in a rush to satisfy the excessive complaining based on anecdotal evidence. The vagaries of combat create results that may not make sense. That is war. But when it happens 7 or 8 times in a row, there is need for more detailed examination of the model (given that all pertinent details are discussed. A topic that I have to agree with Mogami on)

All in all, it is not the end of the world, as I have not had the continuous results that others seem to encounter (I have had reasonable success, just ask Sonny

). I still believe the model can be made better, but fear the same kind of "overreaction" that made UV 2.3 "overcompensate" for percieved problems.

_____________________________

"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC

(in reply to RAM)

Post #: 149

RE: Surface Combat Sux - 9/8/2004 6:26:37 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, I think people do a lot better when they just post combat reports where the testers developers can see them and then explain as much as the circumstance as they can without trying to define where the game is broken. If the game is in fact producing results unintended then posting results is enough. But what we often read is no posted results just general comments and then a lecture on how the game was written using 1865 code and interfered with by non programmers and defended by the loyal unqualified Matrix testers. It is hard to sort out what we need to look out when the same people keep posting to every thread where someone with a real concern and no ax to grind posts a result that puzzles them.

How can a tester deny results obtained by a player? If every player is seeing the same results then no one can change their mind.

The whole issue from my point of view is where somehow I get involved a perceived as the opposition when in fact when I read a post and someone posts a result and says this is normal I post my normal result to show that while it might be normal in the posters game it is not normal in mine. This is not a defense of WITP but my attempt to understand where the difference originate. I always ask for as much detail as can be obtained so I can go look. I only object when someone using only their experiance tells me that any specific result is the normal result for WITP. If there is a problem we have to know exactly how those results are produced. So I ask "Did you do this? did you do that?" Tell me exactly what happened. I don't know how this is taken as a defense of the game but it seems to be the same people who accuse me of being blindly defending a system when I am only trying to understand how results are obtained and showing the results that I am obtaining under what I think are the same circumstance. I have no personal gain in any of the exchange other then improving WITP.

If I deny problems they do not go away. The persons posting the problems have already purchased WITP and I am not in line for any payment.

With one exception I don't recall ever getting personal on these forums and that after many posts were directed at me. (for not agreeing) This goes back before the release of WITP so it was not a case of anyone in the know disputing me from viewing results of WITP other then results I myself or other testers posted and we used the disclaimer "Beta result" when posting.

It is quite simple. If you think you are seeing a bug you post the result on the bug forum and send a save that reproduces the bug and describe step by step how you create thebug. Without a save and directions it can't be fixed. We will certainly keep a look out for it and try to reproduce it but unless we get a save it cannot be fixed.

No apart from bugs we have results that are produced by the program correctly resolving a turn but producing results the players question.

When these are posted I don't think I come into the thread with "Your full of BS that's not what happens here is what happens" (least I hope not)
I want to post "How did that happen? Tell me everything you can, under like circumstance in my play I am getting these results." I begin threads just for players to post their results in. Why? Because it is up to the designers to decide if the program is producing the desired results. It is not up to Mr. Frag or Myself or nay tester. We get grumpy when we get theory or how the game was programed or designed wrong from the start. We do not get upset with anyone questioning a set of results. We do seek to understand how they were produced and resent being told that these results are the normal results. (now remember they might be the normal results in any one game but that game might for some reason be producing abnormal results) They are still not the normal results or we the testers would have noticed and reported it. The best way to reach the designers is not by convincing the tester but just posting the results and how they occurred and leaving the opinion and commentary about the age of the code and the knowledge of the testers out.

Now of course this is a minority of posters. But it did not begin yesterday it goes back well over a year. I'm tired of it. And I think it is true that I am taking some of my frusrtation out on innocent bystanders.

You know I have tried to make Brady understand certain issues for many months. However because I believe Brady to be a good natured and honest person I don't get mad or stop trying. I really want him to understand so he can enjoy the game. He does not have a private adgenda (other then including every piece of Japanese hardware in the OOB)

If you are going to test anything. How many tests do you run before you draw any conclusions? Before you question anything do you first insure that

1. You understand it
2. you operate it properly
3. you have enough experiance to know what is normal and what is not.
4. you know the intend output.
5 you get a second opinion.

Don't take my word for any thing. Go back to the beginning and look to see who appears in many threads. While most people with a question only post single items other people always appear to confirm the problem like they experiance every problem anyone has ever seen in WITP. And before their post in a problem thread is over we read.

It is wrong like everything
Another case of getting it wrong
Example of their not getting it right
Should have been coded this way
Wrong like in 1991 Pacwar
blah blah blah.

(I would not be parnoid if everyone stoped being out to get me.