Matrix Games Forums

New screenshots for War in the West!Pike & Shot is now available!Server Maintenance Battle Academy 2 gets updated!Deal of the Week: Advanced Tactics Gold Ask Buzz Aldrin!Pike & Shot gets Release Date and Twitch Session!Deal of the Week Espana 1936War in the West coming in December!Space Program Manager will be launching on Steam
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Air_combat and co-ordination again

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Tech Support >> RE: Air_combat and co-ordination again Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Air_combat and co-ordination again - 3/27/2013 9:15:06 PM   
obvert


Posts: 7200
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

In this context "might have" doesn't really matter to me. They can speak up and say if it does or doesn't. As far as what it has done, I am OK with what I have seen so far. Some things have been brought up which can be looked at in more detail to see if they are actual problem issues or not. That's where good, focused discussion with good data to back it up comes into play. And, certainly not least, is Michael's willingness to look at things that have a reasonable chance of being actual errors. We have all seen many examples of things that look one way in play results because of the circumstances, but were actually working correctly.


+1

_____________________________


"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 31
RE: Air_combat and co-ordination again - 3/27/2013 9:20:50 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4585
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert
However, I can't imagine why contempt is justified in relation to players discussing this game openly in a forum designed for that purpose. Disagreement is fully justified if ideas differ, but that's why we talk things out. Contempt leads off the mark and away from the subject at hand.


obvert, sorry, maybe that is a language barrier issue. Of some words I assume to know the meaning, but it seems I don´t.
I thought 'contempt' was another word for 'very sure of oneself', or 'big self-confidence'.

The actual meaning of the word 'contempt' does not apply to Alfred IMHO. His tone might sometimes be influenced by frustration over having to point out the same misconceptions
over and over again, or by the readiness of peple to jump conclusions, which happens to me as well. This game is very complex, sometimes a percieved rootcause is crucified and burned
by the masses extensively, providing a very distorted picture of the truth, while the true rootcausefor an occurance is simple gameplay habits and overoptimistic expectations.


I am not pointing fingers here, and I am certainly not accusing Damian of this. He simply provided a result for analysis, mentioned the circumstances, began answering questions
that came up as a result of his post, and stated his personal opinion.

A discussion on that is valid, shouting 'needs to be fixed' without considering loads of context (and I mean much more than is done here on average), in my opinion, is not. Alfreds reactions might influenced by that
he accepted this as self evident years ago.


A generic PS: I am playing without beta, and my Allied carriers won CV vs. CV battles and came out on the winning end of several large strikes performed against them by LBA without catching a fish.
This is the same version that people used to 'demonstrate' that CAP is too leaky to show any realistic results. Maybe the carriers of those where in unrealistic situations? Maybe I simply know my
limitations better and risks I am to take? Maybe I know more about the individual factors that lead to specific OP results and avoid them? Or maybe I am simply lucky?
Anyways, I try for very long to adapt to a situation before I critizise external factors for the results I get.

And this is what Alfred means by suggesting to adapt and not to demand that something should changed to my perceived view of what is correct. Views are different. As it is very evident in this thread.

_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 32
RE: Air_combat and co-ordination again - 3/27/2013 9:22:34 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 3738
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline
obvert,

This is a very old topic. It resurfaces in various guises quite regularly, as the many threads attest. In my view, by far the best single thread which deals with this subject is the following thread from last March.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3056374&mpage=1&key=air%2Ccoordination

Reading that thread and fully comprehending it should be mandatory reading for anyone who wants to wade into these waters again. Otherwise they are prone to coming across as ill informed and unable to offer any constructive criticsm.

My post #17 (which immediately followed the Moose's post which itself provided context to my own post) did not say discussion was verboten but it did indicate perspective was needed. I do find perspective often lacking in those clamouring for changes. Too often the vociferous critics have no, I emphasise, no practical solution to the problem; which problem is more often than not one entirely of their own making being based on unwarranted false self perceptions as to what constitutes reality. Or in some cases it arises simply from just being a very poor player who, for whatever reason, does not understand the rules or how to implement them.

I do become exasperated when half baked ideas are put forward. Only a few people regularly post on the forum and by and large they have a substantial amount of game time. Posters who do their research and put forward a properly thought through proposal do get a good hearing from the devs. Unfortunately there are several people who when they experience an unsatisfactory outcome, which almost always is due to their own play decisions and not code problems, essentially rant and rave. I know that there are many people on this forum who believe that a public rant and rave is acceptable behaviour but I was brought up that only ill mannered people did so. There are polite ways to express disagreement. Your own post #22 is such an example. Instead what I see far too often are people who, incapable of themselves producing an AE, rant and rave and in the process denigrate the efforts and knowledge of the devs. I have enormous respect for the devs, not so for boorish behaviour.

Let me give you an example of a very recent, in the last 24 hours in fact, half baked idea in this general area from a very well known and experienced forum member. One of the significant factors which impacts upon the practical outcome of co-ordination is the size of the air group. Almost from the beginning Allied players have bemoaned the fact that Japanese airgroups often are larger than Allied airgroups and this provides them with a practical advantage. The recent half baked idea, raised in a post which was supportive of this current thread addressing the problem, is that post 1943 Allied fighter groups should be allowed to increase in size to 75 planes. No doubt that would make playing the Allied side so much easier; so much easier to meet 42 plane sweeps from Mr Tojo, so much easier to have a decent sized CAP and a decent sized escort from the same unit. But it doesn't take an Einstein to realise that then JFB players would complain about the advantage given to the Allied player. In the noise created, the subtle ramifications, such as less flexibility or overtaxing small (think particularly of level 1) airfields, or more quickly running up against the 200 pass limit, would be lost. And still the fundamental issues which arise from the necessity to abstract the entire air co-ordination issue would still not be addressed by this code change.

Sometime ago, Bullwinkle pointed out that AE is a Chevrolet but people demand a Cadillac. These same people are not prepared to pay the price of a Cadillac, which price is measured not just in dollar terms but also in game complexity. The people who complain the loudest do not represent the commercial marketplace of this product. In responding to the incessant demands to fix things, and yes post #6 is a clear cut demand for remedial action to make the beta playable, michaelm has made several code changes. Quite a few of those are changes I do not agree with but it is not my call to make and so I don't voice a criticsm. As I said in my previous email, I adapt to whatever is before me. If something is not accomplishing its design purpose, that is something which properly can be brought to michaelm's attention. That is how I read Damian's presentation of this anecdotal incident. It is the behaviour I see from the experienced military members of the forum. What I don't see from those who actually know what they say when it comes to military praxis, is a running battle disputing the validity of the choices made by the devs. A similar state of affairs also exists with those who actually do write computer programs.

As to those who tar me with having an opinion. I am constantly reminded of the great line from a former New York Senator (Daniel Moniham [sp]) that people are entitled to hold their own opinions but not their own facts. Too many around the forum incorporate their own "facts" into their opinions. I tend to document the "facts" I present and actually try to avoid presenting my own opinions. The forum provides a marketplace for the articulation of ideas which are supported by "facts". In such a marketplace, ideas which rest on non facts do not deserve much attention and will fail to find favour with the devs. Taking into account the complexity of this game and the learning cliff faced by newbies, it beholds all who post to be accurate and not create their own "facts" which can potentially adversely affect newbies.

Alfred

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 33
RE: Air_combat and co-ordination again - 3/27/2013 10:11:15 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8620
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

But some big fixes inadvertently leads to game play change doesn´t it? I think all can agree on that this coordination fix has led to a very different air war? Some people love it and some people don´t. Leaving that out of it there are some big things to consider with this.

A big part of my problem is I don't know WHAT was changed. Michael is pretty tight-lipped. The change notes are terse at best. You are in the later war era with huge strikes and think there's a big difference. In our game Mike has said he sees some change, but so far I don't think it's changed the game itself to any great degree, although this or that mission might have more or less coordination than before. Might. Which is sort of my point, and somewhat Alfred's. A lot of the discusison of these things is subjective and game-specific. Michael can't code to that.

- How long has this bug been present is a very important one. I don´t think you can draw the conclusion that removing this bug have led to the air war becoming more in line with what the developers intended. Because they might have applied other tweaks and balances to the air war after the bug were introduced. So removing the bug might actually make it more removed from their intentions.

Was it a bug fix? I can't tell. A bug that was a syntax error is easy to see and fix. A bug which means execution is different than design is much harder to weigh.

- What does this change lead to in the game? I´m not so sure having a discussion about how air war was in the real war is important. I want a game that works.

And I don't know what that means, objectively. Unless it means "does not crash." The game meets that test.

No major game play changes has been implemented in a long time. Now this bug fix has led to a major change. Why are some people automatically assuming this is a good thing?

Unless I have information that Michael executed a change to the models I have to asume he fixed a true bug which was deforming execution against the design models. To my knowledge he has not said exactly what he did. I don't really expect him to.

Almost everyone seems to agree this game is extremely complex and ALL changes should be applied very carefully as the consequences are very hard to predict. But when I voice concern that a major game play change has been implemented over night I´m an idiot? What?

You're not an idiot. But it has been said before and bears repeating every so often: the design team is gone. Poof. Away with the wind. Some working on Da Babes, some gone on to other things in life. Michael is working mostly alone, with some back-channel discussion with the remaining team out of sight. But there's no Matrix QA department in this, and for the most part Michael is making the beta changes on his own accord, and we can use them or not. To my knowledge there's been no announcement that Matrix/Slitherine will ever make the beta an official patch. That takes them spending on QA and in-house distribution implementation and AE is a mature title now.






< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 3/27/2013 10:51:04 PM >


_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 34
RE: Air_combat and co-ordination again - 3/27/2013 10:39:08 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8620
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

obvert,

This is a very old topic. It resurfaces in various guises quite regularly, as the many threads attest. In my view, by far the best single thread which deals with this subject is the following thread from last March.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3056374&mpage=1&key=air%2Ccoordination

Reading that thread and fully comprehending it should be mandatory reading for anyone who wants to wade into these waters again. Otherwise they are prone to coming across as ill informed and unable to offer any constructive criticsm.


Wow! After re-reading that thread I can feel hair springing forth all over my manly body!

We were giants in those days . . .

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 35
RE: Air_combat and co-ordination again - 3/27/2013 10:41:27 PM   
obvert


Posts: 7200
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: online
Thanks for the long response Alfred.

Some of us newer players think we're beginning to understand things, and then are surprised when a long-time veteran player takes issue with what we've said simply because they've ...

A. Seen it before and know where that topic leads or
B. Just have a deeper understanding of the topic or
C. Didn't get their coffee that morning

It's often difficult to tell the difference unless the point is explained.

I do remember the thread you linked and I think there is some great stuff in there. I guess it's tough now talking about this idea because when change happens humans generally want evidence that the change is not detrimental to their interests. It's hard to say it won't alter their experience for the worse, reassure them it's all going to be fine, and not give them particulars of why that is the case and the evidence supporting it. I see this in many fields, especially politics!

I happen to come from a family of Chevy drivers. No really! My father owned in succession a 1957, a 1962, a 1967, and a 1969 corvette! Of course that was all before my time, which I still rib him about. You had all of those corvettes and I grew up driving around in a Nova? WTF?!

I'm happy with the family car when it comes to this game. I think if it were any better I might need a twelve step program, for real. I do like to talk about the particulars though, because that's how I best learn. If I can't debate something my ideas are never questioned and I can go on with completely erroneous ideas of how things are put together and work. I invite differing opinions, criticism and even respectful argument. My goals are to learn and to meet in the middle somewhere.

This issue is really interesting, and I hope everyone continues to voice their experience, tests, game results and ideas. Not with the sole purpose to have the game altered in beta but to at least figure out how things are different and what to do to make up for that. Sure, we each have to learn a bit ourselves, but this has always been a forum that helped teach people and learn new methods to deal with problems.

In the meantime I've got a turn in the box and I'm going to go drive my Chevy.

_____________________________


"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 36
RE: Air_combat and co-ordination again - 3/27/2013 11:59:11 PM   
n01487477


Posts: 4717
Joined: 2/21/2006
Status: offline
Sorry guys to fray tempers again on this overdone topic. I took the results on the chin. In hindsight, I looked at a number of factors and realize that Floyd (my PBEM partner) had a large, large percent of his 9 fighter airgroups from 6 CV's LRCAP-ing the amphib fleet. I should have looked more than just posted, but wanted MichaelM to have a look-see anyway. Calling on the referee all the time is not a good idea... I called on him before I had processed everything that had really happened.

My attack was under bad conditions(weather, some fatigue, higher Allied fighter numbers at higher alt) and I didn't do some things to nullify the losses I took (sweeps, LRCap, escort fighters)etc.

Oh, and yes my planes did get through and took down a few AP's.

I rarely advocate for change except where it doesn't make sense (like the ship repair anomaly in Alfred's 101 thread).

I was not posting to advocate change here. I was posting to give the dev's a chance to see different dynamics within the air model. I don't know if Michael has looked at this, nor whether he will be bothered, but I'll be staying very quiet in this thread now ;-)

_____________________________

-Damian-
EconDoc
TrackerAE
Tutes&Java

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 37
RE: Air_combat and co-ordination again - 3/28/2013 8:28:27 AM   
castor troy


Posts: 12272
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: n01487477

Sorry guys to fray tempers again on this overdone topic. I took the results on the chin. In hindsight, I looked at a number of factors and realize that Floyd (my PBEM partner) had a large, large percent of his 9 fighter airgroups from 6 CV's LRCAP-ing the amphib fleet. I should have looked more than just posted, but wanted MichaelM to have a look-see anyway. Calling on the referee all the time is not a good idea... I called on him before I had processed everything that had really happened.

My attack was under bad conditions(weather, some fatigue, higher Allied fighter numbers at higher alt) and I didn't do some things to nullify the losses I took (sweeps, LRCap, escort fighters)etc.

Oh, and yes my planes did get through and took down a few AP's.

I rarely advocate for change except where it doesn't make sense (like the ship repair anomaly in Alfred's 101 thread).

I was not posting to advocate change here. I was posting to give the dev's a chance to see different dynamics within the air model. I don't know if Michael has looked at this, nor whether he will be bothered, but I'll be staying very quiet in this thread now ;-)



Damian, no need to apologize. You are a well known and very appreciated forum member and are spot on with your comments 99.9% of the time. Pity I couldn't really comment in this thread as I haven't a game going using the latest betas.

If there wouldn't be players commenting and posting their results this great game would be still in v1.0 and everyone should by now realize that not only the great support of michaelm or the devs but also by long term players and forum members has brought this game to where it is now, a pure and simple better product than it was after release (and that does not mean me saying it was crap after release!).

< Message edited by castor troy -- 3/28/2013 8:31:14 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to n01487477)
Post #: 38
RE: Air_combat and co-ordination again - 3/30/2013 1:53:59 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 5895
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

obvert,

This is a very old topic. It resurfaces in various guises quite regularly, as the many threads attest. In my view, by far the best single thread which deals with this subject is the following thread from last March.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3056374&mpage=1&key=air%2Ccoordination

Reading that thread and fully comprehending it should be mandatory reading for anyone who wants to wade into these waters again. Otherwise they are prone to coming across as ill informed and unable to offer any constructive criticsm.

My post #17 (which immediately followed the Moose's post which itself provided context to my own post) did not say discussion was verboten but it did indicate perspective was needed. I do find perspective often lacking in those clamouring for changes. Too often the vociferous critics have no, I emphasise, no practical solution to the problem; which problem is more often than not one entirely of their own making being based on unwarranted false self perceptions as to what constitutes reality. Or in some cases it arises simply from just being a very poor player who, for whatever reason, does not understand the rules or how to implement them.

I do become exasperated when half baked ideas are put forward. Only a few people regularly post on the forum and by and large they have a substantial amount of game time. Posters who do their research and put forward a properly thought through proposal do get a good hearing from the devs. Unfortunately there are several people who when they experience an unsatisfactory outcome, which almost always is due to their own play decisions and not code problems, essentially rant and rave. I know that there are many people on this forum who believe that a public rant and rave is acceptable behaviour but I was brought up that only ill mannered people did so. There are polite ways to express disagreement. Your own post #22 is such an example. Instead what I see far too often are people who, incapable of themselves producing an AE, rant and rave and in the process denigrate the efforts and knowledge of the devs. I have enormous respect for the devs, not so for boorish behaviour.

Let me give you an example of a very recent, in the last 24 hours in fact, half baked idea in this general area from a very well known and experienced forum member. One of the significant factors which impacts upon the practical outcome of co-ordination is the size of the air group. Almost from the beginning Allied players have bemoaned the fact that Japanese airgroups often are larger than Allied airgroups and this provides them with a practical advantage. The recent half baked idea, raised in a post which was supportive of this current thread addressing the problem, is that post 1943 Allied fighter groups should be allowed to increase in size to 75 planes. No doubt that would make playing the Allied side so much easier; so much easier to meet 42 plane sweeps from Mr Tojo, so much easier to have a decent sized CAP and a decent sized escort from the same unit. But it doesn't take an Einstein to realise that then JFB players would complain about the advantage given to the Allied player. In the noise created, the subtle ramifications, such as less flexibility or overtaxing small (think particularly of level 1) airfields, or more quickly running up against the 200 pass limit, would be lost. And still the fundamental issues which arise from the necessity to abstract the entire air co-ordination issue would still not be addressed by this code change.

Sometime ago, Bullwinkle pointed out that AE is a Chevrolet but people demand a Cadillac. These same people are not prepared to pay the price of a Cadillac, which price is measured not just in dollar terms but also in game complexity. The people who complain the loudest do not represent the commercial marketplace of this product. In responding to the incessant demands to fix things, and yes post #6 is a clear cut demand for remedial action to make the beta playable, michaelm has made several code changes. Quite a few of those are changes I do not agree with but it is not my call to make and so I don't voice a criticsm. As I said in my previous email, I adapt to whatever is before me. If something is not accomplishing its design purpose, that is something which properly can be brought to michaelm's attention. That is how I read Damian's presentation of this anecdotal incident. It is the behaviour I see from the experienced military members of the forum. What I don't see from those who actually know what they say when it comes to military praxis, is a running battle disputing the validity of the choices made by the devs. A similar state of affairs also exists with those who actually do write computer programs.

As to those who tar me with having an opinion. I am constantly reminded of the great line from a former New York Senator (Daniel Moniham [sp]) that people are entitled to hold their own opinions but not their own facts. Too many around the forum incorporate their own "facts" into their opinions. I tend to document the "facts" I present and actually try to avoid presenting my own opinions. The forum provides a marketplace for the articulation of ideas which are supported by "facts". In such a marketplace, ideas which rest on non facts do not deserve much attention and will fail to find favour with the devs. Taking into account the complexity of this game and the learning cliff faced by newbies, it beholds all who post to be accurate and not create their own "facts" which can potentially adversely affect newbies.

Alfred

Alfred,

As always a pleasure to read. Largely agree with you. Thanks for taking time to put this down.

Regards,


_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 39
RE: Air_combat and co-ordination again - 3/31/2013 6:10:22 AM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 5209
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline
Nm...


< Message edited by JocMeister -- 4/2/2013 6:01:51 PM >

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 40
RE: Air_combat and co-ordination again - 4/17/2013 11:31:05 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5807
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline
A couple of points in this necro-thread...

1. As Alfred says one thing that many, many people here ( and in general ) are very bad at is understanding the difference between what they WANT to be true and what can actually be supported by facts and objective reality.

2. Very few people here appear to have evolved systemic views of the game wherein they are able to conceptualise how a change in one area will impact on others. This has, as Alfred has said, led to people demanding changes previously ( usually ill-supported by evidentiary bases ) which have had all manner of unforseen ramifications, ramifications which have harmed the overall game.

3. It seems that opinions re: this new beta are operating in the absence of any experiments ( designed so as to allow multiple repeats of a given day with no changes to orders etc so weather and the game algorithm would be the only major variables ) which have provided objective data to compare this data with previous betas or history.

It strikes me that someone needs to put this on a footing whereby there is reasonably objective evidence from a publicly available save which can be run under new and old betas to allow comparison of results once a statistically meaningful number of tests has been run. Until that point in time the discussion simply doesn't have the statistical footing to accomplish anything meaningful beyond the airing of "isn't it strange", "no it isn't" opinions, IMO.

_____________________________

John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 41
RE: Air_combat and co-ordination again - 4/18/2013 2:27:46 AM   
uncivil_servant


Posts: 152
Joined: 2/19/2013
Status: offline
edited as the previous brought nothing of substance to the topic at hand.


But,

I would appreciate antthing that stops one unstoppable force (whomever that may be but in most wars early KB?) from sinking everything in sight in one huge raid which would seem to go very far from historical precendent. Heck, even something planned and practiced for months (PH) still resulted in three waves, for numerous reasons, fuel, density over target, etc. I am all for larger number of smaller raids.





< Message edited by uncivil_servant -- 4/18/2013 10:46:52 PM >

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 42
RE: Air_combat and co-ordination again - 4/18/2013 8:00:10 AM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 5209
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

A couple of points in this necro-thread...

2. Very few people here appear to have evolved systemic views of the game wherein they are able to conceptualise how a change in one area will impact on others. This has, as Alfred has said, led to people demanding changes previously ( usually ill-supported by evidentiary bases ) which have had all manner of unforseen ramifications, ramifications which have harmed the overall game.



Well, in this case its actually the other way around? A quite dramatic change was implemented to the air war due to a bug fix. Personally I have spoken against fixing this bug because it changes so much. The bug has probably been present for a very long time. It might actually have been there from the start. I have been unable to get a response from michaelm on that. But I have played this game for a very long time and I have seen nothing like it before this bug was fixed. That is why I believe it has been present for a such long time.

If so. What other balancing and tweaking has been done while this bug was active? Doesn´t this bug fix in that case undo all that?

As you say changes often have unforeseen ramifications. I see no reason why this change should be different? I don´t think anyone disagrees that this changes a lot gameplay wise. One can always have an opinion on if the change is for better or worse. But I don´t think that is really relevant in this case? Its a larger question than that. Should big gameplay changes be implemented this late in the games development without extensive testing? Personally I don´t think so for the exact same reason you stated. We don´t know the ramifications of it.

I can see a number of things that are affected by this change. People more experienced than me can probably make a even longer list of things affected.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

3. It seems that opinions re: this new beta are operating in the absence of any experiments ( designed so as to allow multiple repeats of a given day with no changes to orders etc so weather and the game algorithm would be the only major variables ) which have provided objective data to compare this data with previous betas or history.

It strikes me that someone needs to put this on a footing whereby there is reasonably objective evidence from a publicly available save which can be run under new and old betas to allow comparison of results once a statistically meaningful number of tests has been run. Until that point in time the discussion simply doesn't have the statistical footing to accomplish anything meaningful beyond the airing of "isn't it strange", "no it isn't" opinions, IMO.


I did do some experiments based on a sandbox game and so did my opponent.

They are located in this thread: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3198512

I´m not a scientist but the difference was strikingly obvious between official and BETA. Strangely enough the bug fixed wasn´t noted in the change log but the change occurred somewhere before 1120b. Michaelm then made a slight adjustment later on that 1120 version.

English is not my native language so I´m not entirely sure what your last paragraph mean. But if I understand correctly you think further testing should be done? If so I agree. No harm can be come from further testing.

The best procedure should be to "undo" the fix from the BETA. Do some proper testing to try and find out how it changes the game over a longer period of time. (IMO).

EDIT: Hm, strangely enough there is a now a entry in the changelog:
19/10/12: 1119b - Restore air co-ordination chance
No idea how I have missed that. I could swear I read it from top to bottom just 2 weeks ago!


< Message edited by JocMeister -- 4/18/2013 9:03:35 AM >

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 43
RE: Air_combat and co-ordination again - 4/18/2013 12:34:47 PM   
HansBolter


Posts: 3652
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: St. Petersburg, Florida, USA
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

I adapt to whatever is before me. I don't demand that something be changed to my perceived view of what is correct.

Alfred


No? You just demand that PEOPLE change to your perceived view of what is correct.

You are growing far too pompous for your own good Alfred.

_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 44
RE: Air_combat and co-ordination again - 4/18/2013 1:17:11 PM   
czert2

 

Posts: 442
Joined: 2/10/2013
Status: offline
ii is posible to code two differen escort modes - close (whcih will try to link with bigest bomber raids, even if that means second or third wawe) ) and high altitude whcih will try to fly at front of stike and try to supress most of enemy fighters ?

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 45
RE: Air_combat and co-ordination again - 4/19/2013 7:36:39 AM   
castor troy


Posts: 12272
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: czert2

ii is posible to code two differen escort modes - close (whcih will try to link with bigest bomber raids, even if that means second or third wawe) ) and high altitude whcih will try to fly at front of stike and try to supress most of enemy fighters ?



no, there's just escort or sweep

_____________________________


(in reply to czert2)
Post #: 46
RE: Air_combat and co-ordination again - 4/19/2013 11:42:58 AM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6275
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline
I've played with the latest beta a lot and, to be honest, i do find that the new (un)coordination value is very very good, cause it brings more unpredictability to the game results.
Guys, with the old bug present before Micheal changed it, the 200 firing passes rule was, imho, killing the late war games.
The Allies could simply send 400 4Es (even unescorted) to smash everything they could reach. The Japs, on the other side, could sink 30+ carriers in a single battle simply placing 200 Frances escorted by 200 Oscars, knowing that, 9 out 0f 10 times, they could have arrived all togheder among the american fleet.
Now you can end up having 4x50 flights of Frances arrive unescorted or, if you're lucky, you can have a couple of decent packages escorted.
Much much better if you ask me. Much more playable and much more adherent to reality.

As LoBaron said many many times, you don't have to consider the single packages met by the CAP as different battles. it's the same battle, just fought on different portions of the sky and at slightly different moments.

That is also true for sweeps. I've seen, with the old patch, coordinated sweeps of 3/400 Tojos, completely smashing any CAP the allied could have. That is no longer possible, thank God!
Now if you wanna have the advantage given by sweep, you have to take your chances that your groups will arrive un-coordinated, thus facing a much more efficient CAP.

And the same goes for CV-CV battles. With the old patch it was a "one shot battle". a single wave of bombers escorted by hundreds of fighters. Even if you had a CAP of 1500 planes you could be sure that the bombers could have arrived almost undamaged over the enemy fleet.

I really do like the present system. Just my modest opinion, obviously

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 47
RE: Air_combat and co-ordination again - 4/19/2013 4:47:02 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 14893
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

I've played with the latest beta a lot and, to be honest, i do find that the new (un)coordination value is very very good, cause it brings more unpredictability to the game results.
Guys, with the old bug present before Micheal changed it, the 200 firing passes rule was, imho, killing the late war games.
The Allies could simply send 400 4Es (even unescorted) to smash everything they could reach. The Japs, on the other side, could sink 30+ carriers in a single battle simply placing 200 Frances escorted by 200 Oscars, knowing that, 9 out 0f 10 times, they could have arrived all togheder among the american fleet.
Now you can end up having 4x50 flights of Frances arrive unescorted or, if you're lucky, you can have a couple of decent packages escorted.
Much much better if you ask me. Much more playable and much more adherent to reality.

As LoBaron said many many times, you don't have to consider the single packages met by the CAP as different battles. it's the same battle, just fought on different portions of the sky and at slightly different moments.

That is also true for sweeps. I've seen, with the old patch, coordinated sweeps of 3/400 Tojos, completely smashing any CAP the allied could have. That is no longer possible, thank God!
Now if you wanna have the advantage given by sweep, you have to take your chances that your groups will arrive un-coordinated, thus facing a much more efficient CAP.

And the same goes for CV-CV battles. With the old patch it was a "one shot battle". a single wave of bombers escorted by hundreds of fighters. Even if you had a CAP of 1500 planes you could be sure that the bombers could have arrived almost undamaged over the enemy fleet.

I really do like the present system. Just my modest opinion, obviously

I'm glad to hear you say that. I haven't seen the degree of coordination issues that some report (I shared loads of combat files with JocMeister for him to compare), and my sense of the air model presently is that it's dangerous for both sides. You definitely get advantages as you should when using better planes/pilots, shorter range, and so on, but there are no outright guarantees, just advantages. I'm not saying there isn't some issue or other lurking that could be uncovered (in something this complex there almost always is), but things look pretty good to me in day to day play. I really am not seeing any game-ruining factors that some people seem to be implying (or almost implying).

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/site/staffmonkeys/

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 48
RE: Air_combat and co-ordination again - 4/19/2013 5:32:35 PM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 5209
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
(I shared loads of combat files with JocMeister for him to compare)


Sorry for not getting back to you on that. Just havn´t had the time to look at them yet!

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 49
RE: Air_combat and co-ordination again - 4/19/2013 6:19:37 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 14893
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
(I shared loads of combat files with JocMeister for him to compare)


Sorry for not getting back to you on that. Just havn´t had the time to look at them yet!

You did get back to me at least once already.

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/site/staffmonkeys/

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 50
RE: Air_combat and co-ordination again - 4/19/2013 8:05:01 PM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 5209
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
(I shared loads of combat files with JocMeister for him to compare)


Sorry for not getting back to you on that. Just havn´t had the time to look at them yet!

You did get back to me at least once already.


Yes I know. But I still havn´t replied to your second PM. I intend to but I wanted to look at the CRs a bit more closely before getting back to you!

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 51
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Tech Support >> RE: Air_combat and co-ordination again Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
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

0.104