LoBaron -> RE: The Trauma of '42: Crackaces (Allies) vs. njp72 (IJ) (4/30/2013 8:26:28 AM)
"The Elf" engaged me in a conversation in GreyJoys thread .. just because one is a F-18 jock does not mean they understand the math involved with their trade or how to program these algorithums so they fit in a game ...
I was a systems architect for Lucent Technologies ..solving software problems was a way of life :) I have never flown fighter jets, but I do understand math, systems thinking, and programing algorithums [:'(]
Actually is funny, bordering arrogant, to assume anybody who flies combat aircraft packed with complex software doesnŽt, or does not do it eqally well as you do. You are talking about people working on difficult mathematical problems under high pressure as a routine training.
A lot of people here do understand mathematics and deal with complex software solutions, including Ian, and myself.
I work as IT architect for an international ISP/Telecommunications company. Means I create IT impact assessments, design and maintain high level system architectures, participate in creation of inter-application functional/technical designs, and do IT project management more or less as a sideshow.
Everytime someone approaches me promising a "simple" "minor step" to change an irritating fundamental software property, I immediately suspect that he, or she, have either not understood the issue at hand, have no idea about the complex (side)effects of their proposed solution (usually the reason they call it "simple"), neglect the impact such a modification has on an overall balanced environment, underestimate the ammount of (regression) testing required on implementation, or some/all of the above.
In 99% of those situations my suspicion turns out correct.
I think a minor step in the right direction would be very doable and worthwhile .. simply abstract intercept like the ol' Luftwaffe game ..
first base crossed initatates detection/ intercept as per the current rules with current leaky CAP/LRCAP rules. That is the first base crossed becomes
a "target" for intercept purposes
The strike algorithm is point to point. The CAP/LRCAP intercept routines are not, they are more complex than that and abstract a lot.
Just an example: What you are referring to as "leaky CAP" is part of those intercept routines. If you just imagine it as leaky CAP, you miss a big part of the air model. Properly understood you can already create situations mimicking an interception along an ingress path.
Creating a virtual (first default? moving? from where is the CAP then pulled? and how is this decided? from the base detecting? from the target base? from all bases along ingress path? does it depend on fighters present with specific CAP and range settings? if yes how does this work with the current fatigue model? with recon/navS intercept? with CV battles and pickets? with multiple strikes on several targets in this environment?) target along the ingress route, to simulate radar detection and ingress intercept, impacts much more than you seem to assume.
To make it short: it would whack the air model in most situations, including those you want to adress with your solution, except if you implement several additional
Since the code is unable to determine a location of the strike - except at base of origin and at target -, only a virtual direct ingress route could be simulated, with the current detection model of radar an inbound strike would always get detected early, with the current reaction algorithm to detected strikes you could draw a whole airforce onto a couple of incoming bombers. With all possible implications. And thats just one minor example.
It only takes seconds to imagine several technical issues, and exploits, possible by such a change of game mechanics, one worse than the other.
Yes, you can find ways around that. But it makes your proposal neither "simple" nor "minor". It would require a complete revamp of the air model, including the DB it is based on. Also I am pretty sure this is not allowed within the juridical limitations, constraining the AE devs to work with large parts of the original GG code.
Simply put, there are no programmers left to deal with changes on such a scale, there is no legal ground to make such changes an option, and there are no testers available to minimize the risk on implementation for a project of this scale.
If you really have been a systems architect you will see this immediately.
The ramifications of the current system means concentrating aircraft at potential targets and generating huge furballs ... which also taxes the current system .. . games like Greyjoy vs. Radier stopped because of these furballs ....If I know I at least get a crack with my early CAP .. I use them on defense rather than focus on sweep or whatever to get an offensive operation in ...
Seems you did not play the recent beta yet. Sounds like you should give it a try.
I havenŽt yet myself, but my next PBEM will surely be latest beta, and I look forward to it. According to what I hear it resolve the issue experienced by rader and GJ pretty nicely.
Good luck with your PBEM. [:)]