Anyone care to speculate on what happened here?

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: herwin

You're dealing with someone who used to do this stuff professionally...

Your dealing with someone who's heard all this chest puffing stuff before. To take a page from Sid Meiyer's book....here's a computer...here's a pile of books. Good luck with your new wargame and let me know when you finish it.

I've designed a few in my time. Never had to make a living doing it, though.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: herwin


I've designed a few in my time. Never had to make a living doing it, though.

So does El Cid allegedly. Great! I'd suggest PM'ing Joe Wilkerson, the head developer and blessing him with your credentials and ideas for rewriting the game.

[rogueusmc]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: herwin


I've designed a few in my time. Never had to make a living doing it, though.

So does El Cid allegedly. Great! I'd suggest PM'ing Joe Wilkerson, the head developer and blessing him with your credentials and ideas for rewriting the game.

He can forward it to Gary who's been doing this for how long?

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: herwin


I've designed a few in my time. Never had to make a living doing it, though.

So does El Cid allegedly. Great! I'd suggest PM'ing Joe Wilkerson, the head developer and blessing him with your credentials and ideas for rewriting the game.

CV: personal website

I've been a beta tester, a late alpha tester, a developer, and a rules question guru for a bunch of games and used to do related work in the military-industrial complex.

[Nikademus]

and i've been a beta tester and developer for this product and UV for several + years yada yada. If your now finished flashing your resume at me, get to it. Can't wait to see the fruits of your work assuming Joe hires you.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

and i've been a beta tester and developer for this product and UV for several + years yada yada. If your now finished flashing your resume at me, get to it. Can't wait to see the fruits of your work assuming Joe hires you.

I understand. I got out of the relevant business about six years ago to become a neuroscientist. My underlying motivation was to understand how the brain does these things, with a longer term and vaguer goal of building real AIs for our kinds of games. The very latest (this week) results suggests that the part of our mind that deals with intention (the will) actually has two quite separate but cooperating components, one keeping the eye on the ball and the other adjusting for random events. This is consistent with some recent results on the interaction between habitual and goal-oriented behaviour--what we do seems to be a compromise between the two, although how that compromise is generated is poorly understood.

So if we want to write a better AI, we need both a long-term planning element and a short-term tactical element. What it does is then the result of overlaying the two. Neither dominates in all situations.

The other half of what we would need to do for WitP II is to take a long serious look at where the current models fall down. I think fixing five things would make a real quantum improvement in realism without losing playability: partial control of hexes, air operations quantified in terms of sorties, a small bit more detail in the logistics, a rethink about how bases are rated, and an increased emphasis on timing in naval operations. The basic rule of naval operations is "attack effectively first" (Hughes). To model naval operations realistically, you have to get the timing sorted so that the advantage of being 'first' is of the right order. I've seen all of those done elsewhere, so I know they can be done here.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: herwin

I've seen all of those done elsewhere, so I know they can be done here

you do? So you've contacted Joe and he's all for it then?

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: herwin

I've seen all of those done elsewhere, so I know they can be done here

you do? So you've contacted Joe and he's all for it then?

Nah... This had a different set of customers.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: herwin


[Nah... This had a different set of customers.

ah, ok. well let me know when you do. Till then, its all talk.

[moses]

I got to work on some of the high end military models a few years back. Granted I wasn't a top dog. But I did get a chance to watch the high ranking guys fight it out with each other and all the computer gurus.

4 months with 20 Major's and above on the red team; 20 on the blue. A whole team of referees in a third big room. Bunches of programers. I was a little analyst (there were about 30 of us) without a whole lot to do.

What did I see? People bitchin about the model. We'd fight the war for a day or so and then some general would go nuts because his pet concept just got blown away because the model wasn't doing right. Then the computer guys scramble about for a couple days while we all twidle our thumbs. Then we start the war over. Pretty soon someones screaming again.

Easiest job I ever had. Right about the time I would start to have data to analyse they would decide to throw everything out and start over.

Still it was kinda cool. You could watch the battle unfold in real time (sort of) and every round and MRE was accounted for. Data printout could tell you how every single individual was kiled or wounded. But it took around 40 guys to play the game and it was a full time job. I mean you had to manually send out supply trucks and things such as that.

Oh and you should have seen how the blue team acted when the red team would do something "gamey"!!!! I half expected court-martial procedings to begin.

So the lesson learned is that it's just not all as easy as it might seem. WITP is a game and has to be playable by those of us who lack a military staff. It has to be programable by those who don't have a 50 million dollar budget. If it was so easy someone would make the thing and put GG & company out of business. They probably wouldn't mind. They'd be playing this new game.

[Nikademus]

thx for the imagry Moses.....made my day thinking about those two groups fighting it out, all pointing to the data, to their rank badges, or maybe their sidearms. [:D]

Yep...talkin is always easier than do'in. Its a frustrating reality i had to learn to accept in my time as a dev/beta.

[herwin]

That was my world, but as long as you kept the stars from messing with the models, it gave you useful results.

Ever play FireFight? The underbrush on the maps got cleared so the TOWs could actually fly out to their maximum range.

I was rules guru for CityFight for a while.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: herwin


[Nah... This had a different set of customers.

ah, ok. well let me know when you do. Till then, its all talk.

OK, here's what to do:

The air operations order should be fairly easy. Just report the estimated sorties for the next day on the squadron chart. Provide a toggle that allows additional missions at the cost of pilot fatigue and the plane being deadlined for maintenance the following day. People will quickly recognise when they need to stand down a squadron. There might be additional logic to accommodate multiple CAP sorties and multiple direct support sorties in the local hex on a single day.

The way points for the naval movement will take a bit of doing, but they can be implemented by expanding the TF data structure and having two additional slots on the TF display.

The two rather than one location during the day for naval movement can probably be done using the multi-day logic. Basically treat each turn internally as two or three days.

The ground combat stuff gets more complicated. Keep track of the percentage that each side holds of the hex. When the percentage reaches 50+%, any bases change hands. Assume the line of contact is from one side to the other. Reduce the area of high islands, atolls, and hexes with one or more ocean hexes adjacent to them. Allow a few more orders, including delay and defend in place. My web site has a calibrated CRT, but the Gamers OCS CRT is even better.

If a naval base or beach is attacked by air, reduce its refueling/refitting/rearming/loading/unloading capacity to reflect the interference with docked TFs. It doesn't take much to make a port unsuitable for base operations.

Break out supply into comsumables/POL/ammo/major end items. A cargo ship loads a balanced proportion of whatever is available at the port.

I'll talk about AI tomorrow.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: herwin


OK, here's what to do:

No, here's what you need to do. Contact Joe Wilkerson with your proposals if you really wish to have your ideas implemented. Since you seem unwilling to do this simple thing, I can only conclude that your all talk...no action.

Like i said....talk is cheap.

[moses]

ORIGINAL: herwin

That was my world, but as long as you kept the stars from messing with the models, it gave you useful results.

Oh please. At least the generals knew when something was out of whack.

Look, because of the way simulations are designed they have limited predictive value. In any sufficiently complex model you program it as best you can using the facts that you are aware of. Then you run the model and try to tweak it so that it replicates whatever historical data you may have.

But once you try to use it to outside of these historical parameters you are extrapolating. Is very dangerous to use any computer model to prove anything in such a complex field because these models are developed with an eye to replicating existing ideas and beliefs. So if the prevailing belief is that light infantry can stand up to armor your model is probably going to support that belief. Why?? Because if an earlier version of the model had the infantry getting creamed then the model would be tweaked to make it "realistic".

As for WITP you have two problems:

1.) There are a lot of types of situations being modeled. For instance they could improve atoll assaults since data could probably be obtained about all the historical atoll assaults and you could set up the exact conditions and run WITP over and over, tweaking as you go until you got a good match. It would be a lot of work. But theoretically it could be done. Then you could do the same thing for several dozen other systems for which historical data exists. Just for ground combat you would probably need multiple models as it would be difficult to imagine a model of atoll assaults would work for ground attacks in China. You're going to need a lot of guys and a lot of time and money but I guess at least theoretically it could be done..

2.) There are a lot of things which can happen in WITP for which there is little or know historical data at all. How do you model an invasion of India. You wing it thats how. You take a SWAG and you hope that people don't make too much fun of you. Even things like zero vs. F4F combat; do we really have much good scientific data. Or do we have reports from a bunch of green pilots claiming to have shot down 6 zero's when actually they had been surprised by a Mavis popping out of some clouds and responded by expending all their ammo on a bunch of distant sea gulls.

And yet with great seriousness people will use whatever quality data they can find to argue endlessly. "The zero bonus is crap--see here I read a book" "Zero's should be invincable until at least 43--read what this here 87 year old austrailian pilot has to say."

Really, to we expect these guys to resolve all these unresolvable questions. Lets be serious, it's a game. I spent around $70 for it. I think I got my money's worth. I like to complain too sometimes but at least I don't expect miracles.

[DD696]

I agree. The game is perfect and no more time should be wasted fixing bugs or attempting to improve anything about the game. No one should be wasting time by speculating on how it could be better, even if it is there own time. Far better to play it without any of the patches as they have blurred the original design of the game and changed the way things were supposed to work when it was released. Please, don't fix anything else! Of course, I do not agree with the opinion stated here.

[Nikademus]

you wern't willing IIRC to take over Andrew's position as CHS gatekeeper either despite several strongly opinionated (some considered it inflammatory) posts about CHS's future direction and current status.

....more talk...no action. [8|]

[moses]

ORIGINAL: DD696

I agree. The game is perfect and no more time should be wasted fixing bugs or attempting to improve anything about the game. No one should be wasting time by speculating on how it could be better, even if it is there own time. Far better to play it without any of the patches as they have blurred the original design of the game and changed the way things were supposed to work when it was released. Please, don't fix anything else! Of course, I do not agree with the opinion stated here.

Gee, are you responding to me??? I've never claimed the game was perfect.

I would guess about a third of my 2000 posts have involved some effort to change or modify some aspect of the game. At one time or another I'm sure I have pissed off each and every moderator on this board.

But its one thing to complain or recommend changes. It's entirely another to frame your complaints in a way which implies that the task at hand is trivial.

Putting the entire war in the Pacific into a computer model is hard. I certainly wouldn't have the talent to even attempt it. But I have just enough programming experience and experience with programmers to understand some of the difficulties. It would be hard if you had 200 programmer/years and a 100 million dollar budget. Much less what these guys had to work with.

So complain and recommend all you want; I certainly do. But lets also remember that as of this moment this is the only game of its kind, and certainly a very high quality effort.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: herwin


OK, here's what to do:

No, here's what you need to do. Contact Joe Wilkerson with your proposals if you really wish to have your ideas implemented. Since you seem unwilling to do this simple thing, I can only conclude that your all talk...no action.

Like i said....talk is cheap.

My answer is that I lack the most important ingredient--time. I can provide $125/hour consulting gratis, but I can't cut a large chunk out of my few remaining years for just this project.

[rogueusmc]

ORIGINAL: moses

ORIGINAL: DD696

I agree. The game is perfect and no more time should be wasted fixing bugs or attempting to improve anything about the game. No one should be wasting time by speculating on how it could be better, even if it is there own time. Far better to play it without any of the patches as they have blurred the original design of the game and changed the way things were supposed to work when it was released. Please, don't fix anything else! Of course, I do not agree with the opinion stated here.

Gee, are you responding to me??? I've never claimed the game was perfect.

I would guess about a third of my 2000 posts have involved some effort to change or modify some aspect of the game. At one time or another I'm sure I have pissed off each and every moderator on this board.

But its one thing to complain or recommend changes. It's entirely another to frame your complaints in a way which implies that the task at hand is trivial.

Putting the entire war in the Pacific into a computer model is hard. I certainly wouldn't have the talent to even attempt it. But I have just enough programming experience and experience with programmers to understand some of the difficulties. It would be hard if you had 200 programmer/years and a 100 million dollar budget. Much less what these guys had to work with.

So complain and recommend all you want; I certainly do. But lets also remember that as of this moment this is the only game of its kind, and certainly a very high quality effort.

Well...I'm responding to you...YOU'RE FULL OF S....just kidding. I happen to agree with your view that things could be fixed but they won't be. All in all, we have game that is as good as you can expect without paying a few grand for it.

Lee