Thinking about WITP-AE ... questions?

[RangerJoe]

The first thing for any job is to decide what is needed to be done, not the power source.

[MarkShot]

No. Most robotic systems are limited by rechargeable batteries. The size, weight, charging, load, and cycle time of the power supply will determine what can be built. You will find that in any intro class on robotics.

GG layered his design very well and realistically by starting with logistics. Kull’s work contributes greatly to the focus on logistics which will drive the war effort.

Sun Tzu covered the basics a long time ago.

[RangerJoe]

What you want the robot to do, its capabilities must be determined. You will not design a robot to weld cars and expect it to be able to pick cherries no matter what the energy source is nor the capacity of the energy source to provide that energy.

When you design a system, you first need to determine what you want the system to do. If you want to write something in zero gravity, you do not need to spend a million or more dollars to design and build a pen that will do that which is what NASA from the USA did, you send a pencil like the Soviets did.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: Kull

A few points:


2) There aren't ANY user-created mods with a scripted AI tailor-made to handle all their changes. The more changes they make to the basic game, the more likely it is that the scripted AI will be unable to function, which is why ALL of them are intended for human-vs-human play. So unless you plan to start playing against humans right from the start, stay away from mods.

Kull,

Your statement is deceptive and misleading. No offense meant.

While there or no user-created mods with modified AI scripts, there are quite a few dev-created mods with modified AI scripts.

Any of the AndyMac created Ironman scenarios for play as either side are very viable for solo play.

I have also found thus far (mid June '43) that IanR's Long Road to Tokyo, which seems to be a build on AndyMac's scen #40 (which is AndyMac's Babes based Ironman scenario) continues to be quite viable.

MarkShot,

My point is don't discount mods out of hand, but you might want to focus on stock scenarios until you get a handle on the game.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: MarkShot

No. Most robotic systems are limited by rechargeable batteries. The size, weight, charging, load, and cycle time of the power supply will determine what can be built. You will find that in any intro class on robotics.

GG layered his design very well and realistically by starting with logistics. Kull’s work contributes greatly to the focus on logistics which will drive the war effort.

Sun Tzu covered the basics a long time ago.

On that note,

Most players don't use the AutoConvoy system.

The more popular method of automating supply, fuel, resource and oil transport is by using the CS or Continuous Supply Task Force setting.

Don't have opportunity to illustrate it right now, but it is accessed in the TF interface by toggling yellow text between Player/Computer/Continuous Supply TF for the Control Setting.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

ORIGINAL: MarkShot

No. Most robotic systems are limited by rechargeable batteries. The size, weight, charging, load, and cycle time of the power supply will determine what can be built. You will find that in any intro class on robotics.

GG layered his design very well and realistically by starting with logistics. Kull’s work contributes greatly to the focus on logistics which will drive the war effort.

Sun Tzu covered the basics a long time ago.

On that note,

Most players don't use the AutoConvoy system.

The more popular method of automating supply, fuel, resource and oil transport is by using the CS or Continuous Supply Task Force setting.

Don't have opportunity to illustrate it right now, but it is accessed in the TF interface by toggling yellow text between Player/Computer/Continuous Supply TF for the Control Setting.

It's simple enough to describe:
1. Set up a convoy at the source port that you want to draw supply/resources/fuel/oil/from. Use appropriate ships for the convoy type and match them fairly closely by speed and individual cargo capacities (so you don't have a bunch of ships waiting around for the biggest ship to finish loading/unloading).

2. Set the destination you are hauling to. Then check if the range is a problem or not (the hex count for the return trip at the upper left of the TF screen will show red).

3. If needed, in the Routing screen, designate a waypoint at an en-route port that has enough fuel. At that waypoint, set fueling orders to "tactical" or "minimal".

4. While you are in the Routing Screen, decide if you want to specify Direct or Coastal Routing instead of Standard Routing and consider if you want to change the Threat Level Tolerance. Usually it is just left at "Normal".

5. Set the Fueling order on the main TF screen to Minimal or Tactical or Do Not Refuel. You don't want to fuel up at a remote port if your origin port has plenty of fuel, and, CS convoys will automatically fully refuel when they return to home port regardless of the TF refueling instruction.

6. Make sure your most skilled ship captain is the TF commander by adding his ship to the TF last.

7. Now that the orders are complete, click on the yellow hypertext for "Player Controlled" and the TF will show "CS Convoy". It will operate continuously, loading the same load and delivering to the same place until you change it or it suffers catastrophic damage and disbands for repairs.

A suggestion too - do not make your CS convoy larger than 10 ships. Larger convoys are much more prone to collisions.

[Kull]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Kull,

Your statement is deceptive and misleading. No offense meant.

While there or no user-created mods with modified AI scripts, there are quite a few dev-created mods with modified AI scripts.

This is "deceptive and misleading"?

The second is a script, not an AI in the sense of algorithms which evaluate an opponent's moves and react to them (other than in an equally script-based way). It has been updated many times for the various "as-delivered" scenarios along with most of those in a Dev-created mod series called "DaBabes".

2) There aren't ANY user-created mods with a scripted AI tailor-made to handle all their changes.

You just repeated - almost verbatim - EXACTLY what I said. [8|]

[Ian R]

Hans, I agree with Kull - for example Andymac's ironman scripts are designed specifically for scenario 10 in its three levels of nastiness - meaning it is an official scenario.

I don't think he was referring to that as a "user created mod".

[Alpha77]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Your statement is "deceptive and misleading". "No offense" meant.

Find the error ?[:D]

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter
Your statement is deceptive and misleading. No offense meant.

Let me make a suggestion here. Don't start with an offensive statement if you don't mean to create offense. Misleading could be neutral, but deceptive is a very strong word. You could simply state the following:

"To the best of my knowledge, your statement is incorrect." etc. and then provide your information. No need for "No offense meant" then.

Regards,

- Erik

[HansBolter]

Erik,

Tired of being harassed by Matrix staff.

I endeavor to use nothing but strong words.
Snowflakes should beware.

To those picking nits, I'll pick a few more.

My definition of a stock scenario are those that are on the CD shipped to me by Matrix. Everything that followed is a modded scenario.

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter
Tired of being harassed by Matrix staff.
I endeavor to use nothing but strong words.
Snowflakes should beware.

I think your definition of harassment and mine are quite different.

You can use whatever words you like, _as long as_ you follow the forum rules on civil discussion.

Regards,

- Erik

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

ORIGINAL: HansBolter
Tired of being harassed by Matrix staff.
I endeavor to use nothing but strong words.
Snowflakes should beware.

I think your definition of harassment and mine are quite different.

You can use whatever words you like, _as long as_ you follow the forum rules on civil discussion.

Regards,

- Erik

Would refer you to my recent posting history on the WITE2 forum for a look at said harassment.

As you obviously gleanedfrom my last response I took considerable exception with your presumption to the right to lecture me.

Ban me for breaking the rules if I do, but kindly keep your advice to yourself.

Add me to the list of forum regulars and dedicated customers you have succeeded in pissing off with your treatment of Alfred.

You have succeeded in causing the rare astronomical alignment necessary for me and MM to actually agree on something. BRAVO.

[stretch]

Hey Erik, just shut the forum down, it'll be easier then dealing with everyone's feelings and opinions.

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter
Would refer you to my recent posting history on the WITE2 forum for a look at said harassment.

Feel free to PM me with those links if you believe you have actually been harassed by our staff and I will take action.

As you obviously gleaned from my last response I took considerable exception with your presumption to the right to lecture me.
Ban me for breaking the rules if I do, but kindly keep your advice to yourself.
Add me to the list of forum regulars and dedicated customers you have succeeded in pissing off with your treatment of Alfred.
You have succeeded in causing the rare astronomical alignment necessary for me and MM to actually agree on something. BRAVO.

Message received - I'll refrain from further suggestions in your case. We all agree to follow the forum rules on civility when posting here. We're all adults and can take a few extra seconds to make sure we remain civil before posting. Those that can't are welcome to take their discussions elsewhere or they'll be warned and then banned.

As far as Alfred's ban, he fully earned it with his own posting behavior, both recently and going back many months. He's welcome back here if he can moderate his manners.

Regards,

- Erik

[Kull]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Erik,

Tired of being harassed by Matrix staff.

I endeavor to use nothing but strong words.
Snowflakes should beware.

To those picking nits, I'll pick a few more.

My definition of a stock scenario are those that are on the CD shipped to me by Matrix. Everything that followed is a modded scenario.

"
Sorry Hans, you don't get to "deflect" your way out of this. Let's break this down so that even the most "comprehension-challenged" can follow it. In opposition to my "deceptive and misleading" statement, you began with:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

While there or no user-created mods with modified AI scripts

So what did I actually say?

There aren't ANY user-created mods with a scripted AI tailor-made to handle all their changes.

Hmmmm. Sounds like we are in complete agreement on that one. Maybe you point out the "deception" in the rest of your sentence?

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

there are quite a few dev-created mods with modified AI scripts.

And again, here's my statement which you found so offensive:

(The script) has been updated many times for the various "as-delivered" scenarios along with most of those in a Dev-created mod series called "DaBabes".

You phrased it a bit differently, but it should be obvious we are saying EXACTLY the same thing.

So where is the "deception" Hans? What exactly is "misleading"?

[BBfanboy]

Not sure if I am guessing correctly here, but my first impression about Hans' post was that he was, without consciously stating it, thinking of the recent statements that the new scripts written for Scenario 1 have been referred to as " improved AI" by experienced players. Alfred made a recent post pointing out that the scripts do not change the game engine in any way to make a "new AI". The misuse of the terminology "AI" in relation to the game is one of Alfred's bugaboos, and he was blunt about how it was creating confusion when the term is used instead of "script". I am sure Hans saw and agreed with Alfred's analysis and perhaps shared his frustration.

So any subsequent discussion of "AI" becomes a trigger - are we really talking about complex computer analysis and output or are we just talking about some new info fed into the same game engine and producing somewhat different results? Since none of us is likely be be exact in communicating our take on an issue, I cut some slack for people seeming to disagree through misunderstanding.

[Yaab]

Well, to me "updated AI" means "new AI scripts".

Thank you, AndyMac!

[Kull]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

Not sure if I am guessing correctly here, but my first impression about Hans' post was that he was, without consciously stating it, thinking of the recent statements that the new scripts written for Scenario 1 have been referred to as " improved AI" by experienced players. Alfred made a recent post pointing out that the scripts do not change the game engine in any way to make a "new AI". The misuse of the terminology "AI" in relation to the game is one of Alfred's bugaboos, and he was blunt about how it was creating confusion when the term is used instead of "script". I am sure Hans saw and agreed with Alfred's analysis and perhaps shared his frustration.

So any subsequent discussion of "AI" becomes a trigger - are we really talking about complex computer analysis and output or are we just talking about some new info fed into the same game engine and producing somewhat different results? Since none of us is likely be be exact in communicating our take on an issue, I cut some slack for people seeming to disagree through misunderstanding.

No. He makes no reference to that in his post, whereas mine EXPLICITLY refers to the difference between the two. If that's what he meant, he could have quoted that part of my post, but he did not. I want to know how he can possibly accuse me of deception (a VERY strong accusation) and then agree with me completely.

[Erik Rutins]

I expect Hans will speak up for himself, but I given that he added the "no offense" I think at face value we should accept that he did not intend to cause offense, despite the fact that I agree that the phrase would otherwise cause offense.