Near misses

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Dili
That is one of most strange things about witp and it seems AE. Excellent detail in some situations, but some essential air-naval warfare issues not modelled at all. The most outrageous is obviously the carrier deck armor issue. Its a strange lack of focus on what should be some the core of the game.

It's not a lack of focus at all. The focus is on a strategic Pacific Theater wargame. We did that.

The rest of the crap is on daily doo doo that you people are demanding. The lack of focus is in the details, and that's exactly what you people want, or don't want; or rather you people don't know what you want, or maybe some of you want this, and some of you want that.

Yes, I'm testy. I am very testy. I've already reported myself to the moderators as a Gulag candidate. We break our stones to make a Pacific Theater level game and you people whine about gunnery near misses?? We break our stones to make a Pacific Theater level game and you people whine about not being able to paradrop a raider company?? We break our stones to make a Pacific Theater level game and you people whine because a transport sub has a cargo capacity of 200 instead of 237??

There ain't enuf ascii characters to represent what I think, not nearly enuf. You don't like it, send me to the Gulag. I could use a rest.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Maybe near misses were just abstracted in as 'hits'. Do you know otherwise? They abstracted lots of things in this game engine (as they had to).

I always kinda thought that the high percentage of hits by bombs could always represent near misses, especially when they hit belt armour. However.... given the absence of unarmoured hull, deck and superstructure hit locations (ie, the armoured paint model we have now, where every extremity is covered by belt, deck or tower armour), I don't think this was a design feature, just player acceptance.

[Ron Saueracker]

Hey John, we on the outside looking in are simply filling our boots with anything related to the game and its' backdrop, the Pacific War. I don't think anyone here is actually criticising on a serious level. I for one have been posting alot lately just to fill my boots as I can't play the old WITP any more with AE so close, and all other games simply suck. Posting is cheaper than strip clubs, know what I mean?[;)]

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Maybe near misses were just abstracted in as 'hits'. Do you know otherwise? They abstracted lots of things in this game engine (as they had to).

I always kinda thought that the high percentage of hits by bombs could always represent near misses, especially when they hit belt armour. However.... given the absence of unarmoured hull, deck and superstructure hit locations (ie, the armoured paint model we have now, where every extremity is covered by belt, deck or tower armour), I don't think this was a design feature, just player acceptance.

Having cheated and looked at code, I believe there is an allowance for the effect of near misses. There is also implementation for deck armour for carriers. I do not believe there is a representation of unarmoured flight decks over armoured main decks as the data structure does not provide multiple deck armour values. Might have been a good idea, but it is not there. That we will have to live with.

I would like to remind you all that AE is a 100% volunteer endeavour. People are putting in more hours than their day jobs and trying to answer your questions on the side. Frayed nerves are to be expected.

I give you my complete money-back guaranty that there will be something that you do not like in AE. There will be a lot you do like. Like WITP, we are modeling a massive conflict with thousands and thousands of units and parameters and features and abilities and limitations. AE went a level deeper in most of them, which is good. Everybody wanted that. Now everybody wants the next level and, were that available, the next after that. One of my favorite quotes applies. As the circle of light that is man's knowledge expands, so does the circumference of the darkness that surrounds it(sic). Specific near misses would spawn a desire for distance of miss calculations, depth of water, concussion calculations, and on and on. And provision of deck armour would just spawn requrests for elevator hits, affects of duds, and on and on again.

I side with John on this - play the game (once it is out), work with the issues, and try to enjoy more and bitch less.

[Ron Saueracker]

Well, as soon as we all have our grubby little paws on this puppy I'm sure there will be alot less posting. However, I am the griper extraordinaire.

[Kull]

ORIGINAL: JWE
It's not a lack of focus at all. The focus is on a strategic Pacific Theater wargame. We did that.

The rest of the crap is on daily doo doo that you people are demanding. The lack of focus is in the details, and that's exactly what you people want, or don't want; or rather you people don't know what you want, or maybe some of you want this, and some of you want that.

Yes, I'm testy. I am very testy. I've already reported myself to the moderators as a Gulag candidate. We break our stones to make a Pacific Theater level game and you people whine about gunnery near misses?? We break our stones to make a Pacific Theater level game and you people whine about not being able to paradrop a raider company?? We break our stones to make a Pacific Theater level game and you people whine because a transport sub has a cargo capacity of 200 instead of 237??

There ain't enuf ascii characters to represent what I think, not nearly enuf. You don't like it, send me to the Gulag. I could use a rest.

Please don't take the criticisms to heart. Remember why you and all the others banded together to do this - to make a game you'd be happy to play and proud to put your name on. Well, it's almost there. As for the seemingly endless requests for more, I know it FEELS like being told you have an ugly baby. But almost every person that's made a suggestion or even a poorly worded criticism has also posted 10 "awesomes" for every "if only". There are 1000s of us out here, all are awestruck by AE, and all are immensely grateful for the personal sacrifices the whole team has made in order to bring it to us.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Kull

ORIGINAL: JWE
It's not a lack of focus at all. The focus is on a strategic Pacific Theater wargame. We did that.

The rest of the crap is on daily doo doo that you people are demanding. The lack of focus is in the details, and that's exactly what you people want, or don't want; or rather you people don't know what you want, or maybe some of you want this, and some of you want that.

Yes, I'm testy. I am very testy. I've already reported myself to the moderators as a Gulag candidate. We break our stones to make a Pacific Theater level game and you people whine about gunnery near misses?? We break our stones to make a Pacific Theater level game and you people whine about not being able to paradrop a raider company?? We break our stones to make a Pacific Theater level game and you people whine because a transport sub has a cargo capacity of 200 instead of 237??

There ain't enuf ascii characters to represent what I think, not nearly enuf. You don't like it, send me to the Gulag. I could use a rest.

Please don't take the criticisms to heart. Remember why you and all the others banded together to do this - to make a game you'd be happy to play and proud to put your name on. Well, it's almost there. As for the seemingly endless requests for more, I know it FEELS like being told you have an ugly baby. But almost every person that's made a suggestion or even a poorly worded criticism has also posted 10 "awesomes" for every "if only". There are 1000s of us out here, all are awestruck by AE, and all are immensely grateful for the personal sacrifices the whole team has made in order to bring it to us.

Hear, hear!!! Well said Kull.[&o]

[Dili]

Yes, I'm testy. I am very testy. I've already reported myself to the moderators as a Gulag candidate. We break our stones to make a Pacific Theater level game and you people whine about gunnery near misses??

Well i didn't refered near misses as you can read in my text. I also think that criticism/lament was also directed to witp than to AE since AE people have to live from what the witp land gives. I think that at certain level of hits the air operations should be closed at least, that is the main problem with current carrier deck armor, even more since most carriers in game are Japanese and American with hangar deck armor and not flight deck protected like some British. The main criticism is obviously directed to initial witp since that is an conceptual issue in an aeronaval game.

As the circle of light that is man's knowledge expands, so does the circumference of the darkness that surrounds it(sic). Specific near misses would spawn a desire for distance of miss calculations, depth of water, concussion calculations, and on and on. And provision of deck armour would just spawn requrests for elevator hits, affects of duds, and on and on again.

Comparing concussion effects with 10-15% bomb duds[:)]? I think bomb and naval round duds are much more important than elevators but while round duds can be managed by editor tweaking "accuracy" i don't think bomb duds can be managed that way. At least in witp i don't remember seeing duds from bombs and any way to tweak their accuracy, but my memory might be fading.

[John Lansford]

Well, when there is obviously a lot of effort put into how many torpedoes a carrier had in the magazines, and what planes could carry what ordinance, and when certain planes/LCU's/ships were available for service, and the damage potential for some rather esoteric weapons were researched, and penetration levels of every weapon was developed, and even very minor variants of planes are included, etc, etc, it's not surprising that the users (us) would ask if certain well-known and common effects and results would be modeled into the game as well.
 
Things like bombs penetrating a carrier's flight deck and exploding in the hangar deck
Near misses causing flooding within the ship
Non armored portions of a ship being hit and damaged by bombs and shells

[steveh11Matrix]

I think I'm going to wait until I play it to judge. I know there have been adjustments to both "System" and "Flotation" damage, which now operate rather differently to previously. (So far I'm unclear how they now operate, but that's a separate issue.)

Steve.

[kaleun]

As soon as "The One" is out, we shall have a lot of time to find out.
A lifetime or until WITP 2 comes out, whichever comes first. (Except for any pending games of course)
My newest PBEM partner is getting hitched in a couple of months and seems distracted.

Pity, he was in the running for the fastest allied victory ever. Maybe now I have a chance.

(Maniacal laughter in the background)

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Kull
Please don't take the criticisms to heart. Remember why you and all the others banded together to do this - to make a game you'd be happy to play and proud to put your name on. Well, it's almost there. As for the seemingly endless requests for more, I know it FEELS like being told you have an ugly baby. But almost every person that's made a suggestion or even a poorly worded criticism has also posted 10 "awesomes" for every "if only". There are 1000s of us out here, all are awestruck by AE, and all are immensely grateful for the personal sacrifices the whole team has made in order to bring it to us.

I guess in a sense that’s true. We do take criticism to heart, because we want this game to “work”.

The thing that frosts me the most is that we spent a lot of time developing ‘concepts’ for various functions. Now concepts don’t translate very well into specific battle results, although they do a good job with longer term results.

This is a strategic, theater level, game, based on a strategic, theater level engine. When people start whining about Bn paradrops in Burma, or the specific placement of individual rounds in a ship v ship encounter, I think it’s time they went elsewhere.

Yeah, I’m really happy with what we did; and if the community isn’t, well specific comments will be considered.

[witpqs]

With any large community the old saw about 'pleasing everyone' applies. I have yet to see AE for myself but I have a very strong suspicion that the community as a whole will be immensely pleased. [:)]

[Kwik E Mart]

In my company, there are those that want to know how much product shipped and how much $ we made shipping it. Call them the Type A's. Then there are those that plan how much raw material to purchase, how to best get it to the production floor, how many people it will take to make the product and the schedule for making it. Call them Type B's. And lastly, there's people like me, who have to know exactly how many widgets it will take to make the product, how each widget performs to make the product work, and if there's a problem, which of the 100's of widgets failed and how to make it right.

In my experience, Type A's don't care what Type B's or C's do, as long as they see the $ number they expect. Type B's are kinda stuck in the middle, trying to please the type A's, and at the mercy of the Type C's, who can ruin their day if they decide a widget needs to be changed or modified. The Type C's are generally not concerned about the $ or the schedule, but can tell you exactly how many fasteners it takes to make an ACME X2000 instrument and the specifications of each one of them.

Which are you? Do you say "Take control of the Central Pacific, and I don't care how"....or "I'm gonna need two carrier task forces and 300 planes to control that ocean, and by the way, I'm gonna need 40k supply points and 100k fuel points".... or "I don't know how you are going to try and control that ocean if you don't know how the percentage of near misses are factored into the damage model".

Sometimes I feel mischievous and try to piss off the A's and B's by telling them a widget needs to be changed, but I won't tell them why or how....besides, I would just confuse them anyways - do they even care? Then I remember most of them make more money than I do and drive better cars....[;)]

[GaryChildress]

All these little nuances of warfare which keep popping up are reaching the point of absurdity. If near misses WERE factored in I can just see it coming: "My ships keep getting sunk by near misses? How realistic is that!?" The debate would go on and on and on over how realistically near misses are reflected. AE is a vast improvement over an already great game. Let's just keep it at that. Otherwise we'll never see it completed in our lifetimes. [:(]

EDIT: As I see it there are two possiblities in combat. A ship is either hit or it isn't. A "near miss" is basically a hit of a sort and is technically covered under the hit or miss rule. End of debate.

[RevRick]

Well, next on the list to be discussed tonight on "Fun Flaming in the Pacific" is a question near and dear to all afficionados of the submerged service - AKA bubbleheads. The question that comes up on the Spinning Wheel, Vanna, is this: Will it be possible to aim a torpedo so that it strikes a relatively heavily armored vessel just at a main frame on the juncture of a major thwartships bulkhead between two large below the waterline spaces which therefore causes that vessel to sink?

*Note: I am sure that there will be some voice heard which will cry that this "absoltively posilutely MUST be factored into the game equations IMMEDIATELY, or the game will be a totally disastrous inaccurate abysmal failure."

El Torro PooPoo!!!!

It's time to step back and take a deep breath!!!

RUACH!!! PNEUMA!! STAND ON YOUR TIP TOES AND BREATHE.. RUACH! PNEUMA!!

AND reellaaxxxxxxxxx.....

Breath deeply the flavor of life and anticipate with joy that with which we are about to be graced by the efforts of a few who have devoted their time and energy to improve the gaming, and fun, of the experience many of us have anticipated for several decades, or more...

We could keep loading this thing down, but then wewould have what happens when a government bureaucracy decides to design a mouse. When all is said and done, and all the wish list items are granted, each request for enhancements addressed, and the experts calculations are tallied and taken into account - you wind up with an elephant instead...

OY!!!!

Good Job So Far, guys just keeping us advised what is going on and what y'all have done so far. Don't get nibbled to death by ducks....

[JWE]

No worries, Rev. I've decided to just go sailing. Won't be posting for a while. Leaving the world to the ducks. Ciao.

[TMFoss]

I think some people are losing perspective here.  This is a strategic/operational level game.  If you want a tactical game with all the aspects of a tactical game modeled, then buy a tactical game.  I am not worried about the specifics of weaponry or wether a specific small unit is in the game. I just want a game that works, and I know that I am not alone in this.  Exactly how the armament is modeled or whether near misses are modeled or not are not that important to me.  I just want to know that my major ships are being lost and damaged at a reasonable rate,that I have sufficient land forces and sea forces to take a specific target without going to the absurd 10+ division atoll invasions sometimes necessary in WITP, and that air combat and loses are at a reasonable rate.  If the results are not realistic, then the developers will hear about it from many users, and it will be addressed. As far as I can tell, the developers have done everything reasonably possible,and then some, to deal with all of these issues.  I love the detail of this game and have played WITP since it came out, but there can be too much detail.  The old adage tells of losing the forest for the trees-here we have some people losing the trees for the twigs.  By the way, I have two weeks vacation time coming up- will I have something fun to do?  [:D]

[Tophat1815]

ORIGINAL: JWE

No worries, Rev. I've decided to just go sailing. Won't be posting for a while. Leaving the world to the ducks. Ciao.

Sorry man,certainly don't want to come off as ungrateful swine. Once this puppy rolls out much of the tension should ease off. Also telling the community in general to piss up a rope every so often isn't a bad thing.[;)]

[Nikademus]

There'll be enough new stuff to figure out that at least a week will go by before the complaints about this or that missing feature get posted.

well maybe a week.

[:'(]