ASW: Any tactics to localize?

[mikmykWS]

ORIGINAL: Vincenzo Beretta

All databases employ either tricks or tweaks to make the game more challenging. Some of them are more extreme than others.

For example, DB2000 employs invisible "KGB agents on weather balloons", or SS-N-19s on similar balloons to simulate an Oscar striking a CVN with the player unable to stop it (because there is no Oscar to be found via ASW tactics in the first place). You are not forced to employ this kind of tricks, but some scenario do.

Kinda gives you a headache doesn't it?

At the end it comes down to two things: your philosophy about what is "fun" and the objective fact that scenario/DB designers must confront the (increasing) number of unfixed bugs in the basic game.

I agree Vince however I wish people would be a little more focused on helping fix the bugs then run every AGSI programmer through the ringer. The atmosphere around 3.6.x was more congenial which may have contributed to its success and popularity. Perhaps its time to copy this[:)]

I agree that it is time for a new generation of games. But in the meanwhile it would be cool to play with a game that - as you may have noticed - has such passionate following. The reason why they, sadly, are unable/unwilling to fix it is, by now, beyond me - and something I sometimes can only compare with "writer block".

Have you ever actually asked? Or do you just deal in what you think might be the reason? Just asking.

[Vincenzo_Beretta]

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

ORIGINAL: Vincenzo Beretta

All databases employ either tricks or tweaks to make the game more challenging. Some of them are more extreme than others.

For example, DB2000 employs invisible "KGB agents on weather balloons", or SS-N-19s on similar balloons to simulate an Oscar striking a CVN with the player unable to stop it (because there is no Oscar to be found via ASW tactics in the first place). You are not forced to employ this kind of tricks, but some scenario do.

Kinda gives you a headache doesn't it?

Chasing phantom subs while using a DB that stresses "realism"? Well, of course it gives me an headache: one would expect, using such a DB, for realistic ASW tactics to work. [:)]

Luckily, shortly after that there was a rant by DB2000 mantainers about how "some players cheated by opening the scenarios in the editor!" As a rule of thumb, these rants usually try to pre-empt behaviour that lead to funny and/or embarassing discoveries. This was an hint to actually check the scenario with the editor - and, lo and behold! - the uncanny Oscar was actually a bunch of SS-N-19 armed balloons. So much for realism... [8|]

I wish people would be a little more focused on helping fix the bugs then run every AGSI programmer through the ringer.

Beside giving them a complete buglist complete with situations showing the bug created with the scenario editor and the official ANW DB, what it could be done?

No amount of friendly help, research and open brainstorming can make a blocked writer write: it won't happen until he admits the block's existence and starts working seriously on its roots - squirming, rage and bitter accusations actually becoming how attempts to be helpful are greeted. This is why I compare the current bug-fixing situation to a writer block.

The atmosphere around 3.6.x was more congenial[:)]

As long as everyone agreed to the "omerta'" climate. As soon as buglist were compiled and problems with DBs pointed out, bans ensued.

Have you ever actually asked? Or do you just deal in what you think might be the reason? Just asking.

Regarding "asking", I think you can throw a stone in this forum and you will find a post asking about something to be fixed. The reasons why this doesn't happen... these I can only surmise.

Just to be clear, in the meanwhile "War in the Pacific" got the AE, and TOAW III got patch 3.4 - whose readme could be turned into a "Cantata" by J.S. Bach. What we got were whines against "people asking for perfection" - and more bugs.

[hermanhum]

ORIGINAL: Vincenzo Beretta

All databases employ either tricks or tweaks to make the game more challenging. Some of them are more extreme than others.

For example, DB2000 employs invisible "KGB agents on weather balloons", or SS-N-19s on similar balloons to simulate an Oscar striking a CVN with the player unable to stop it (because there is no Oscar to be found via ASW tactics in the first place). You are not forced to employ this kind of tricks, but some scenario do.

I remember that situation now. It was hilarious. [:D]

fb.asp?m=1224499

[mikmykWS]

ORIGINAL: Vincenzo Beretta

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

ORIGINAL: Vincenzo Beretta

All databases employ either tricks or tweaks to make the game more challenging. Some of them are more extreme than others.

For example, DB2000 employs invisible "KGB agents on weather balloons", or SS-N-19s on similar balloons to simulate an Oscar striking a CVN with the player unable to stop it (because there is no Oscar to be found via ASW tactics in the first place). You are not forced to employ this kind of tricks, but some scenario do.

Kinda gives you a headache doesn't it?

Chasing phantom subs while using a DB that stresses "realism"? Well, of course it gives me an headache: one would expect, using such a DB, for realistic ASW tactics to work. [:)]

Luckily, shortly after that there was a rant by DB2000 mantainers about how "some players cheated by opening the scenarios in the editor!" As a rule of thumb, these rants usually try to pre-empt behaviour that lead to funny and/or embarassing discoveries. This was an hint to actually check the scenario with the editor - and, lo and behold! - the uncanny Oscar was actually a bunch of SS-N-19 armed balloons. So much for realism... [8|]

So you didn't like what he did in that scenario. So what? I can think of a few scenarios I didn't like the design but I'm not going wee..wee..wee..about it some forum 3+ years later. I just went on to the next scenario and did my thing. Its weird your that hung up on this but maybe its all you can hang your hat on. Beats me!

In all seriousness I think that people learn by doing things and sometimes failing. That guy eventually posted some of the most popular scenarios and got better at the craft. More importantly somebody out there had a good time with it and Harpoon. Nothing beyond that really matters.

I wish people would be a little more focused on helping fix the bugs then run every AGSI programmer through the ringer.

Beside giving them a complete buglist complete with situations showing the bug created with the scenario editor and the official ANW DB, what it could be done?

No amount of friendly help, research and open brainstorming can make a blocked writer write: it won't happen until he admits the block's existence and starts working seriously on its roots - squirming, rage and bitter accusations actually becoming how attempts to be helpful are greeted. This is why I compare the current bug-fixing situation to a writer block.

Wow good thing we're not all writers Vince. Sounds like a real bummer.

The atmosphere around 3.6.x was more congenial[:)]

As long as everyone agreed to the "omerta'" climate. As soon as buglist were compiled and problems with DBs pointed out, bans ensued.

Yes getting along was important to success. You have to pick your battles well, measure your responses and act where you can be the most effective to be productive. A good team is able to do this and still go for beers after. This is why I think 3.6.x worked out so well and hope they do the same in the future.

The buglists have been around since the beginning of all the projects. There wasn't anything new with Herman's initial copy of it although I realize the value in depicting it that way[;)]

Have you ever actually asked? Or do you just deal in what you think might be the reason? Just asking.

Regarding "asking", I think you can throw a stone in this forum and you will find a post asking about something to be fixed. The reasons why this doesn't happen... these I can only surmise.

Not what I mean. Have you ever actually asked somebody at AGSI what the challenges are? You don't seem shy about telling people what you think the reasons are but there seems to be some sort of block about actually asking the source. Writer's block or just afraid your theories might be wrong?

Just to be clear, in the meanwhile "War in the Pacific" got the AE, and TOAW III got patch 3.4 - whose readme could be turned into a "Cantata" by J.S. Bach. What we got were whines against "people asking for perfection" - and more bugs.

People are still around though so maybe somewhere in the middle.

[mikmykWS]

ORIGINAL: hermanhum

I remember that situation now. It was hilarious. [:D]

Between you and your partner maybe but the units are still in the database and are not hidden at all. Fact think they're still there and in the initial versions of the pdb as well. If you added your own to your db it must of been an okay idea at the time.

<shrugs>

Anyways...I understand you lost the scenario though and may have been mad. Sorry! His work overall is outstanding and had a great time with his scenarios and Harpoon.

[Vincenzo_Beretta]

ORIGINAL: mikmyk
So you didn't like what he did in that scenario.

No, I didn't. And even less while "realism" and "research" were branded about as prizes on that site's mantlet. Try to put "invisible M1A1 tanks" in a scenario for WitP AE, and you will discover that its community won't like it, too.

but I'm not going wee..wee..wee..about it some forum 3+ years later. I just went on to the next scenario and did my thing. Its weird your that hung up on this but maybe its all you can hang your hat on. Beats me!

God wills! But, as it happens, people are going "wee..wee..wee.." about the greatness of the past DBs and the dire state of current ones *in this very thread*, not 3 years ago. I don't think that sprinkling these tall tales with a little bit of truth is a bad thing.

In all seriousness I think that people learn by doing things and sometimes failing. That guy eventually posted some of the most popular scenarios and got better at the craft.

Of creating scenarios... maybe. Of maitaining DBs, no, as we saw. And playing with a DB that makes scenarios crash renders the first point moot.

Wow good thing we're not all writers Vince. Sounds like a real bummer.

No, it is actually a nice job/hobby. Of course it requires honesty, responsibility and humily - as basically every job requires.

Yes getting along was important to success. You have to pick your battles well, measure your responses and act where you can be the most effective to be productive.

If asking for a bug to be fixed is "picking a battle"... Well, this explains a lot of things. However, I just noticed that what you wrote is even more meaningful if spoken with "The Sopranos"' New Jersey accent [:D]

A good team is able to do this and still go for beers after.

Agreed: a beer and a "thank you" to someone who finds and points out a problem are better than a ban. No question about this.

The buglists have been around since the beginning of all the projects. There wasn't anything new with Herman's initial copy of it although I realize the value in depicting it that way[;)]

No. The real value was to have it *in a public place* - a corageous act given the climate of the time. I'm glad to hear that now it will be beer and friendship. Will those who pointed out bugs and crashes get unbanned in this new "Perestrojka" climate? [:'(]

Not what I mean. Have you ever actually asked somebody at AGSI what the challenges are? You don't seem shy about telling people what you think the reasons are but there seems to be some sort of block about actually asking the source.

Do you know how many psychiatrysts you need to change a light bulb? None: it's the ligh bulb that should choose to change itself. Having said that...

Writer's block or just afraid your theories might be wrong?

"Theories?" What "theories"?!

The buglist is in the open for everyone to check and test (thanks to Herman, not to some "I did it before and then sat on it!!). For the examples the official DB is used, as requested. You can find open requests for AGSI to fix the bugs in this very forum (stalking them and molesting them in their houses not being my habit). Other games get fixed with much less effort by they costumers...

Having pointed out that, Now *I* ask to you: who is looking afraid to be discovered being unable to do what requested?

[Nebogipfel]

Have you ever actually asked somebody at AGSI

Dear mikmyk,

insulting people doesn´t seem to be the right way to encourage them.

You and Mr. Koelbach (btw. I apologize for my country, its a shame for me to see a german behave like that in a world-wide forum) do not encourage anyone to do something productive, if you´re going on with this childish behavior.

I can´t really judge, who is wrong or who is right. But all the people reading this posts here, can judge, if something is childish or not.

Nebogipfel

[Spearfish]

ORIGINAL: hermanhum

I remember that situation now. It was hilarious. [:D]

fb.asp?m=1224499

ROTFL! I have played this scenario the day before yesterday and I was very surprised! The situation is even worse than you think. Note those balloons do not imitate SSGN because they carry SS-N-12, not SS-N-19 missiles. This means they imitate...Soviet large surface combatant (CVHG Kiev, CG Slava) which is also completely stealthy! This is much more unrealistic than invisible SSGN and thus I was very surprised when NATO warships were suddenly attacked by salvo of SS-N-12s incoming from nowhere. In real life it would be almost impossible for Soviet SAG to close to such powerful NATO fleet without radar detection and followed by devastating NATO airstrike. You should also check prompt SS-N-9 salvo striking British carrier group...Sirens are also hanging on balloons?

Yet this is "Clash of Titans" scenario made by guy who supposedly knows Soviet naval strategy very well...please add several invisible NATO balloons armed with GBUs and flying over captured Soviet airfields in Norway to save game balance! In those days US were much more familiar with stealth technology than Soviets - actually then top-secret F-117A was in service since 1981.[:D]

[hermanhum]

ORIGINAL: Spearfish

You should also check prompt SS-N-9 salvo striking British carrier group...Sirens are also hanging on balloons?

I believe that your reported SS-N-9 salvo is an error on your part; possibly confused with another scenario. There is not a single submarine in that scenario. I also looked for SS-N-9s hanging from a weather balloon and did not find any. Plenty of other invisible "Combat Weather Balloons", but none armed with SS-N-9.

ORIGINAL: Spearfish

Yet this is "Clash of Titans" scenario made by guy who supposedly knows Soviet naval strategy very well...please add several invisible NATO balloons armed with GBUs and flying over captured Soviet airfields in Norway to save game balance!

This design technique appears to be this author's "signature" and is found in at least two other of his scenarios. But, to be honest, other authors and databases also have "invisible helper platforms" included for their users, including the PlayersDB. It is the manner in which they are used (or, possibly abused?) wherein lies the difference, IMO. If you design a scenario with the PlayersDB, you could re-create a similar scenario. No one will stop you. However, I find that most other authors use these types of units/platforms to help the AI be more challenging without affecting the outcome of the scenario.

For example, some scenarios might have helper platforms to get the AI to delay launching SSM strikes because there is a known game limitation that makes all SSM strikes launch one second after the game starts. In this way, the helper platforms make something happen without ever affecting the final outcome of the scenario and (hopefully) the player notices nothing.

This is different from the employment you are seeing. In Clash of the Titans, it does not matter how you run (not 'play') the scenario, you are always going to lose 2 CVNs in the end. You could shoot down every enemy bomber and it would not affect the result. If you do not touch a single key and just let the AI attack you, you will lose the same ships each and every time. So, what's the point of 'playing' the scenario? You may as well rent a video to watch since the outcome is always the same and pre-ordained.

To be fair, I would not describe Clash of the Titans as 'broken', either. The Victory Conditions work, the strikes launch, the planes fly, etc. IMO, this constitutes a functional scenario (regardless of any opinion on realism).

[iriyak]

ORIGINAL: koelbach

...and now we should give this thread back to Kazunori and ASW tactics! [:'(]

Ahaha, that's OK. Will build a new thread [8D]

[Spearfish]

ORIGINAL: hermanhum

ORIGINAL: Spearfish

You should also check prompt SS-N-9 salvo striking British carrier group...Sirens are also hanging on balloons?

I believe that your reported SS-N-9 salvo is an error on your part; possibly confused with another scenario. There is not a single submarine in that scenario. I also looked for SS-N-9s hanging from a weather balloon and did not find any. Plenty of other invisible "Combat Weather Balloons", but none armed with SS-N-9.

From my AALog file:

14887
----------------------
Weapon Siren is resolving its attack against FF 1081 Aylwin
Attacking a surface target with base pH: 70%
Total countermeasures: -10%
Final pH: 60%
Roll: 7 (Hit)
----------------------
14887
FF 1081 Aylwin has been hit by a weapon
14887
FF 1081 Aylwin is Sinking!
14887
Siren has self destructed.
14887
Siren has self destructed.
14887
Siren has self destructed.
15091
----------------------
Weapon Siren is resolving its attack against FF 1068 Vreeland
Attacking a surface target with base pH: 70%
Shot down by point defense.
15103
Siren
Small airborne contact.
Contact lost.
Method: Visual
15104
----------------------
Weapon Siren is resolving its attack against FF 1068 Vreeland
Attacking a surface target with base pH: 70%
Total countermeasures: -10%
Final pH: 60%
Roll: 38 (Hit)
----------------------
15104
FF 1068 Vreeland has been hit by Siren
15104
FF 1068 Vreeland is Sinking!
15104
Siren has self destructed.

So I lost two Knox-class frigates destroyed by inexistent Sirens? Check these balloons more carefully! I am sure one SSGN Charlie-II hangs on the balloons over there... [;)]

ORIGINAL: hermanhum

In Clash of the Titans, it does not matter how you run (not 'play') the scenario, you are always going to lose 2 CVNs in the end. You could shoot down every enemy bomber and it would not affect the result. If you do not touch a single key and just let the AI attack you, you will lose the same ships each and every time. So, what's the point of 'playing' the scenario? You may as well rent a video to watch since the outcome is always the same and pre-ordained.

I also run this scenario and did not play it but only watched what was going on...two American CVNs were sunk. While JFK was actually hit by two or so AS-6, loss of Ike is very strange. I only got three bold of blue messages:

18179
CVN 69 Dwight D Eisenhower has been hit by a weapon
18179
CVN 69 Dwight D Eisenhower is Sinking!
18179
CVN 69 Dwight D Eisenhower has been detached from TG 401.2 [CVBG].

So it seems Ike was hit by some stealthy top-secret Soviet mega-weapon... [:D]

I think this screen-shot should explain a lot:

[Spearfish]

Also Charlie II was found here:



"Use full realism to play this..." [:D]

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: hermanhum

ORIGINAL: Nebogipfel

But ctd´s for example bother me.

They bother me, too. But, to be honest, they are not even the worst problems on the List of Known ANW Issues). A CTD means a re-start from an old save while most of the other problems will plague the player throughout the game. [:(]

I absolutely want to see this game fixed. However, I will not squander a single second or cent on a supposed de-bugging process that is an exercise in pure futility by only reporting bugs via specific (buggy) databases.

I see that AGSI officialdom now follows this forum closely, so I know that this message will be read (even if it isn't understood):
[blockquote]AGSI,

You have wasted 6 years on ANW and it only gets worse and buggier with each subsequent release. The development process has always been conducted under 'the AGSI way' [which is always the same no matter how often you 're-organize' it].

When are you finally going to realize and accept that 'the AGSI way' simply does not work and be willing to explore other avenues?[/blockquote]

I'd like to direct you to this post:

tm.asp?m=2498107

In particular, these sections:

Given this philosophy, we will still place a high value on feedback, and we always appreciate valid defect reports (aka bugs). However, because of Harpoon's complex history there are many issues that are specific to older databases or scenarios not of AGSI’s or Matrix’s making that haven't kept up with the modeling changes. We are responsible for the official databases and scenarios, and for informing the public regarding what changes each update entails. Third party designers are responsible for their own scenarios in this regard. If we have to choose between improving the simulation or maintaining backwards compatibility with third party data and scenarios, we will choose the former. We realize some fans of Harpoon may prefer to stay with older versions for whatever personal reasons, which is part of why we decided with the Ultimate Edition to include as many of the older Harpoon versions as we could fit into a single release. This allows us to meet the needs of both parts of the community - those that want the simulation to advance and those that want compatibility with older databases and scenarios.

It's also worth noting that in the past, we have heard a great deal from people who have never been to sea, who have never been trained as naval (or air) professionals, have never programmed or created a full database, with strongly worded opinions on how our simulation is supposed to behave. While constructive feedback from our customers is always welcome, we believe that the work by Bond and Carlson should be our guide in terms of how the simulation should work. As many Harpoon fans are aware, this community has seen some very unfortunate events in its history that have given rise to online flame wars, personal attacks and questions of intellectual property; both between community members and in terms of some copyrighted materials. We hope to see the end of this with the steps we are taking for the Ultimate Edition release and for the future of Harpoon. We want to make it clear that we will not accept non-constructive feedback on our official forums in the future. However well intended or misguided, this has caused harm to the game and the community and we will not allow that to continue.

Now as far as defects are concerned, there is a right way and a wrong way to report these. First, due to our limited resources and the seemingly endless permutations of data and game engines once third party databases and scenarios are added to the mix, we will automatically reject any claimed defects on our sites if they are not reproduced in the ANWDB or the HUD3 databases. We will take responsibility for correcting those defects that can be reproduced in one of the two aforementioned databases with the latest official release. We reserve the right to reclassify defects into bugs (something we'll prioritize for fixing), feature requests (stuff that folks want but the game doesn't currently have), user knowledge (i.e. user doesn't understand how the model works) and unsupported functionality (a user who does something with the game or scenario editor that we hadn't thought of and thus hadn't tested).

This also goes for our forums. As we explained above, we will no longer be accepting lists of bugs related to third party unofficial databases or scenarios. If you find an issue, please duplicate it with an official database and scenario before reporting it and please report it as noted above. Otherwise, you’ll have to seek out the owner of that third party product for assistance.

We want to provide the best possible simulation given the resource limitations. If you want to help, work with us, not against us. We have a long history of volunteers making a positive difference, politely and professionally. Our volunteers have received written credit, some swag, bragging rights, and a few even made some beer money for their efforts. We need scenario authors, database editors/authors, artists, testers and maybe some day, investors. Part of our philosophy and the policy stated above is to give credit to, and work with the members of our community who have put in their time to support Harpoon and who are willing to work with us as we continue to improve.

You've crossed this line again and again - despite claims that you are trying to help Harpoon, you are unwilling to actually work with us to help it. That's a shame as you could have had a very positive effect on the game and the community with the amount of time you've put in.

The net effect of the methods you chose instead is that you have harmed and are continuing to harm Harpoon and your past and current actions are splitting the community. Whatever your agenda, whether its self-promotion, some kind of grudge or just that you are genuinely misguided, this has gone far enough.

You are banned from this forum until further notice. Feel free to e-mail me at erikr@matrixgames.com if you have any questions.

To everyone else: We welcome help and involvement from the community and we hope that with the release of the Ultimate Edition, some past issues can be buried and a more constructive dialogue can emerge. We would love to have your help tracking down any issues in Harpoon - the only requirements are as posted in the Ultimate Edition thread. Because of limited development time, we need these reported per those rules.

Regards,

- Erik

[Erik Rutins]

Locking up this thread - constructive discussions are fine, but this one headed off that track a while back.