In answer to your comments on the AE Nav Forum:
There are many and various new data fields extant in AE that inform and define the parameters used in the game engine. Any reliance on the “names” and “effects” of the old WiTP data fields is misdirected, and will result in potentially fatal entanglements for the unfortunate.
WiTP is a computer wargame, it is a simulation, it is not a recreation. It is a commercial gaming product devised for enjoyment and that is the basis of the engine. We may tweak it, here & there, but certain fundamental principals hold.
There are multiple new fields that inform things like building cost, repair cost, conversion cost, upgrade cost, damage control parameters, and they are each, and independently variable, and controlled by editor values and hard coded data value tables resident in the executable code.
I am unable to give looks under the hood, but the values were developed by reference, by persons having a specific expertise in these matters.
There will be substantial differentiation between merchant vessels and commissioned vesels on the same design. However, the differentiation parameters will not necessarily relate to WiTP. They will be AE exclusive. They will depend on USN and shipyard records, where appropriate, and on established USN doctrinal imperitives, where data is unavailable.
Merchant and other parameters in AE
Moderators: wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami
-
el cid again
- Posts: 16983
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm
RE: Merchant and other parameters in AE
When working in a complex computer program environment, even if the code is published and supported by documentation of an exhaustive nature (which is neither the approach used by Matrix nor economic for it to be in a commercial gaming application), it is very hard to know exactly what is intended, or how close the package (code, tables, data) comes to implementing what was intended (and it is never perfect), or how it could have been done better? The task of trying to understand what has been done is even more difficult when it has not yet been done - and the normal resort of an analyst (testing) is not even an option. For this reason, it is not easy to make a lot of specific, germane and cogent comments on a product which, after all, is still in evolution.
Nevertheless, some things are clear. AE is not a new system, it is a modified one. WITP is in many respects important context for understanding what is happening in AE. All the times we read "that didn't make the cut" meand "it will remain exactly as it is." And to the degree there are fundamental changes in the meanings of fields, or values in those fields, AE is going to squander the research and work done trying to improve WITP - which cannot fairly be said to have been diligently done in terms of research or consistent application of data. IF the assertion (which I suspect is overstated) that things are somehow fundamentally different is valid, I only hope (and ask) that the differences are defined, along with standards and definitions. If Matrix is great because it gives us editors, it is not helping us help its products be what they could be by not supporting us with proper definitions and standards. I am glad to see there is much more effort being given to various aspects of these matters than was originally done. But I am not entirely confident that the process of technical specification and definition is really happening to such an extent that every programmer, every data entry person, and every supervisor will all know exactly what is intended for each field (wholly apart from the question of wether these standards will be disclosed for users of editors). If this is happening/happens, AE will surely be better than if it does not. But even if it is done, exactly how things really work will not be clear to those working on things: even a carefully engineered system wholly documented from the beginning differs from what is intended in unexpected ways; when the system is built on a foundation like WITP - itself built on other foundations - which were not completely defined and are not completely understood by anyone - the differences must be far greater.
IF AE were a perfect product, standing on a perfect foundation, perfectly executed, the differences in goals between a commercial company and historical gamers are such that there will be ample room for improvement. It is a principle of engineering that any product can be made better, from the moment any aspect of it is understood. Competitive products - arriving later - are usually better products - if those who worked on them had only modest talent - because of this principle. People in the world of real world application of complex computer programs are entirely within bounds to think in terms of "what can we do better" - and there is nothing that prevents them from doing so later, wether or not they understand enough to do so sooner. In this case, how much we understand sooner is a function of what you decide to share with us. We cannot easily contribute more than is facilitated. But we are not the enemy - and the point of Forum discussion was to solicit feedback with a view to making things better. Trying to say "we know everything and you cannot depend on anything" is not going to produce a better product.
However much people working on this or that know, their knowledge is not total, and their available time and budget must be finite. Further, it is reasonable to assume that things mean what they say - that people mean what they say - and that what is already is a foundation for what is to come. It is less reasonable to say - as is said above - that USN standards are to be applied: RN standards differ significantly from USN standards, even when the very same class is involved (see in particular CVEs); IJN standards are significantly different from both. If USN standards are those being used, it means that the system can be improved by NOT using them where they should not be used.
I do not believe that ships data generated for WITP I is not useful in generating ships data for AE. Clearnly many things must remain the same: name, dates, locations, cruising speed, maximum speed, armament, fuel capacity, range, and likely other fields should be either identical or a function of the previous ones. Maneuverability, durability, protection fields might be changed - and might benefit from significant changes - but I am not holding my breath about any of them. If they change, I hope we are told how they changed, and what should be done to figure out correct values in the revised system: otherwise how could anyone ever add any new class or modification of it? But regardless of the technical details, PRINCIPLES of what should be in those fields will not change. To the extent that durability is related to ability to sustain damage, if it is not changed in relation to the nature of the specific fitting of the ship, it will be something we can do better. And to the extend it is done, we won't have to do it better. Either way - it should be - and will be - done to the highest standards. Whatever you do, it is subject to review and improvement, in the very nature of all things technical. Honest software engineers acknowledge their debt to those who come before them. But nothign prevents anything from being done better. The goal should be to facilitate full understanding of the product so comments and later data implementations can be done more easily. I do not see this as an essentially adversarial process. Don't be upset if people state principles of engineering, damage control or whatever. Being upset or denying they apply only implies what is being done is NOT to the highest standard and will require more revision rather than less. Asking for feedback should be a respectful process - and I mean that in a two directional sense. We need to respect what we are told. But don't tell us nonsense - which cannot really be so. If you want to be specific - then be specific - tell us a definition - tell us how this APA differs from that AK on the same hull implementing that definition - and let us comment on why you got it dead on perfect - or not - and why not. But don't just say "it isn't what you think, you have no clue, and we don't need to listen after all to the comments we asked for in the first place."
Matrix benefits from the Forum - and we have attracted some expertise to it. Matrix has cleverly devised a system which exploits man years of volunteer labor. And because everyone is better off, no one should ever be upset about anything. Getting upset is not going to help - and almost always is a result of less than perfect communications. If that less than perfect communication is because we don't know what you did not tell us - don't blame us - and don't imly we did something wrong because of being forced to work on general principles and logic. You have the power to make it better - to whatever extent you want to. Always be polite, and if people are interested in what you are doing, always facilitiate their understanding to the degree you can. And remember - no one ever is going to perfectly understand a complex product of this sort - nor will it be exactly what you are trying to make it. We are all like doctors, medical technicians and others attempting to understand a biological process: we can make more or less educated guesses - but our knowledge is never total and perfect. ALL of us.
Nevertheless, some things are clear. AE is not a new system, it is a modified one. WITP is in many respects important context for understanding what is happening in AE. All the times we read "that didn't make the cut" meand "it will remain exactly as it is." And to the degree there are fundamental changes in the meanings of fields, or values in those fields, AE is going to squander the research and work done trying to improve WITP - which cannot fairly be said to have been diligently done in terms of research or consistent application of data. IF the assertion (which I suspect is overstated) that things are somehow fundamentally different is valid, I only hope (and ask) that the differences are defined, along with standards and definitions. If Matrix is great because it gives us editors, it is not helping us help its products be what they could be by not supporting us with proper definitions and standards. I am glad to see there is much more effort being given to various aspects of these matters than was originally done. But I am not entirely confident that the process of technical specification and definition is really happening to such an extent that every programmer, every data entry person, and every supervisor will all know exactly what is intended for each field (wholly apart from the question of wether these standards will be disclosed for users of editors). If this is happening/happens, AE will surely be better than if it does not. But even if it is done, exactly how things really work will not be clear to those working on things: even a carefully engineered system wholly documented from the beginning differs from what is intended in unexpected ways; when the system is built on a foundation like WITP - itself built on other foundations - which were not completely defined and are not completely understood by anyone - the differences must be far greater.
IF AE were a perfect product, standing on a perfect foundation, perfectly executed, the differences in goals between a commercial company and historical gamers are such that there will be ample room for improvement. It is a principle of engineering that any product can be made better, from the moment any aspect of it is understood. Competitive products - arriving later - are usually better products - if those who worked on them had only modest talent - because of this principle. People in the world of real world application of complex computer programs are entirely within bounds to think in terms of "what can we do better" - and there is nothing that prevents them from doing so later, wether or not they understand enough to do so sooner. In this case, how much we understand sooner is a function of what you decide to share with us. We cannot easily contribute more than is facilitated. But we are not the enemy - and the point of Forum discussion was to solicit feedback with a view to making things better. Trying to say "we know everything and you cannot depend on anything" is not going to produce a better product.
However much people working on this or that know, their knowledge is not total, and their available time and budget must be finite. Further, it is reasonable to assume that things mean what they say - that people mean what they say - and that what is already is a foundation for what is to come. It is less reasonable to say - as is said above - that USN standards are to be applied: RN standards differ significantly from USN standards, even when the very same class is involved (see in particular CVEs); IJN standards are significantly different from both. If USN standards are those being used, it means that the system can be improved by NOT using them where they should not be used.
I do not believe that ships data generated for WITP I is not useful in generating ships data for AE. Clearnly many things must remain the same: name, dates, locations, cruising speed, maximum speed, armament, fuel capacity, range, and likely other fields should be either identical or a function of the previous ones. Maneuverability, durability, protection fields might be changed - and might benefit from significant changes - but I am not holding my breath about any of them. If they change, I hope we are told how they changed, and what should be done to figure out correct values in the revised system: otherwise how could anyone ever add any new class or modification of it? But regardless of the technical details, PRINCIPLES of what should be in those fields will not change. To the extent that durability is related to ability to sustain damage, if it is not changed in relation to the nature of the specific fitting of the ship, it will be something we can do better. And to the extend it is done, we won't have to do it better. Either way - it should be - and will be - done to the highest standards. Whatever you do, it is subject to review and improvement, in the very nature of all things technical. Honest software engineers acknowledge their debt to those who come before them. But nothign prevents anything from being done better. The goal should be to facilitate full understanding of the product so comments and later data implementations can be done more easily. I do not see this as an essentially adversarial process. Don't be upset if people state principles of engineering, damage control or whatever. Being upset or denying they apply only implies what is being done is NOT to the highest standard and will require more revision rather than less. Asking for feedback should be a respectful process - and I mean that in a two directional sense. We need to respect what we are told. But don't tell us nonsense - which cannot really be so. If you want to be specific - then be specific - tell us a definition - tell us how this APA differs from that AK on the same hull implementing that definition - and let us comment on why you got it dead on perfect - or not - and why not. But don't just say "it isn't what you think, you have no clue, and we don't need to listen after all to the comments we asked for in the first place."
Matrix benefits from the Forum - and we have attracted some expertise to it. Matrix has cleverly devised a system which exploits man years of volunteer labor. And because everyone is better off, no one should ever be upset about anything. Getting upset is not going to help - and almost always is a result of less than perfect communications. If that less than perfect communication is because we don't know what you did not tell us - don't blame us - and don't imly we did something wrong because of being forced to work on general principles and logic. You have the power to make it better - to whatever extent you want to. Always be polite, and if people are interested in what you are doing, always facilitiate their understanding to the degree you can. And remember - no one ever is going to perfectly understand a complex product of this sort - nor will it be exactly what you are trying to make it. We are all like doctors, medical technicians and others attempting to understand a biological process: we can make more or less educated guesses - but our knowledge is never total and perfect. ALL of us.
-
DuckofTindalos
- Posts: 39781
- Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:53 pm
- Location: Denmark
RE: Merchant and other parameters in AE
Don't think any member of the AE team has ever claimed it to be "perfect". Far from it, in fact...
We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.
-
el cid again
- Posts: 16983
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm
RE: Merchant and other parameters in AE
No - but I do think at least one member of the AE team has moved a great distance toward that goal - specifically meaning that I think Terminus has become a far more communicative and civil person - and I wish to say I appreciate it.
-
DuckofTindalos
- Posts: 39781
- Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:53 pm
- Location: Denmark
RE: Merchant and other parameters in AE
Well, I'm not on the team anymore, so...
We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.
-
jwilkerson
- Posts: 8252
- Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2002 4:02 am
- Location: Kansas
- Contact:
RE: Merchant and other parameters in AE
ORIGINAL: el cid again
I do not believe that ships data generated for WITP I is not useful in generating ships data for AE. Clearnly many things must remain the same
Cid ... you may not believe X or Y. We cannot be sure. "clearnly" not withstanding!!!
But that is irrelevant (sorry irrelevant) ...
The research for AE ... has been totally independent of the research for stock. So, things must not necessarily remain the same ...
Engine restrictions may not be totally changed ... but primary research for the one is unrelated, totally from the other, do you disagree?
WITP Admiral's Edition - Project Lead
War In Spain - Project Lead
War In Spain - Project Lead
-
el cid again
- Posts: 16983
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm
RE: Merchant and other parameters in AE
Not at all. I think a total redo of the research was warranted - and that is politely put. I strongly agree with that choice - although I am surprised by it (it must be expensive). I don't think this is the subject however. What data should go in a field is / was the subject. I have no problem in principle with using good new research to figure this out. But the denial that damage control matters is related to durability is a big problem IMHO - and if it is not taken into consideration - well it will be better when/if it is taken into consideration. Inherantly and AK, an AO, an AR, an AMC or other vessel are not ton for ton identical in terms of durability. Sometimes JWE seems to say he agrees with that - but still I am "wrong" to say it! whatever that means? Whatever he believes or means, the principle remains.
RE: Merchant and other parameters in AE
Just a couple of cents with my opinion.
WITP was after all a monumental effort for a small game company which started by refurbishing Steel Panthers and getting it in front of the public for name recognition, (and credibility in the gaming community).
Matrix then offered UV (just to test the engine and measure interest in the general genre, I'm sure).
During this period, I'm also fairly certain a lot of "square meals" were missed and peanut butter sandwiches were consumed in order to get this excellent game up and offered to the gaming public.
The historic research for the game could not be complete by any measure, or funds would have surely dried up and the game never been delivered.
Now, with so many grognards having spent so much time scrutinizing every nook and cranny of the game, and nothing but time to pour over historic volumes (which the original team could not afford to do), I just feel every patch,mod and addition to this game is just a step closer to the finest war game ever created for the computer.
Matrixgames does not sell junk, and I appreciate the many fine people I have met in its' forums over the years.
WITP was after all a monumental effort for a small game company which started by refurbishing Steel Panthers and getting it in front of the public for name recognition, (and credibility in the gaming community).
Matrix then offered UV (just to test the engine and measure interest in the general genre, I'm sure).
During this period, I'm also fairly certain a lot of "square meals" were missed and peanut butter sandwiches were consumed in order to get this excellent game up and offered to the gaming public.
The historic research for the game could not be complete by any measure, or funds would have surely dried up and the game never been delivered.
Now, with so many grognards having spent so much time scrutinizing every nook and cranny of the game, and nothing but time to pour over historic volumes (which the original team could not afford to do), I just feel every patch,mod and addition to this game is just a step closer to the finest war game ever created for the computer.
Matrixgames does not sell junk, and I appreciate the many fine people I have met in its' forums over the years.
-
el cid again
- Posts: 16983
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm
RE: Merchant and other parameters in AE
This is long lost on ancient threads - I have been around since the first edition of UV - but it is entirely true that doing complete research on the War in the Pacific was not economic - hense my surprise so much is being done now. I have long given Matrix credit for trying. I am less than happy with the details of implementation - but also to Matrix credit - we can edit in better data. This is almost like a mechanical game - which you could modify totally - and it is wonderful.