On Devices, Penetration and Ammunition types

[Great_Ajax]

He doesn't know. This was a combat system that Gary developed almost twenty years ago. Jim Wirth worked with Gary on all of the ground elements so really only those two know any of the real workings of the system.

ORIGINAL: DarkHorse2

ORIGINAL: Denniss

there's likely a random chance to pick the wrong ammo for the target. As in realworld a tank may have already expended the matching ammo

Come on Denniss,

Can't you throw us more crumbs than this?

Certainly you can share a little more detail?

[DarkHorse2]

I can understand Denniss not knowing off the top of his head. But I hope Gary is approachable and willing to share some of the details as players inquire.

None of this work is blackops or skunk works. ( https://lockheedmartin.com/en-us/who-we ... works.html )

It is just basic inquiries into the data elements they have published regarding the underlying game engine. Surely, at some point, they realized that players are going to ask questions about them.

This is pertinent to scenario designers and modders as well.

As much as I hear and empathize with them regarding how they only have 'x' developers that they keep locked in a basement somewhere in Siberia, the community is motivated enough to assist if we only had knowledge of some of the inner workings.

As much as it must be hard to hear, there are still kinks to be worked out in WiTE2. Some of these manifest at what appears to be a micro-level, but they soon spill out to the macro combat engine as a whole.

While seeing patch notes saying

xxxxx weapon system's HVAP Penn increased from 'x' to 'y'

is encouraging, it still raises the question - "ok, what does this mean?"

Additionally, I sincerely applaud the developers for adding in the csv logging and making it available to the community. However, some basic information on the log content is sorely needed - or what was the purpose?

Even a basic wiki could help facilitate some of this information sharing. Hopefully those guys they have in Siberia have internet.

I think this is one area that players get frustrated and move on - a general lack of meaningful feedback on the game subjects they have been publicly exposed through the manual - or - via the Commander's Report, but have never been fully documented. (or documented at all)

The fact that players are interested at all should be interpreted as a good thing. A very good thing.

But that interest quickly wanes when routinely met with

"oh, that code is so old, so complicated, that nobody knows what it is doing... and Gary is locked away in his fortress of solitude and too busy to address the public masses. yeah, we have no idea when he will emerge, but you really don't have a 'need to know' about the game data anyways..."

It is responses like these that undermine the credibility of the game engine. It does not matter how much game detail that is exposed when it is ultimately, all shrouded in mystery. The very fundamentals that WiTE2 is based soon start to lack substance and becomes meaningless.

So, someone needs to sit on top of Gary, with a recording device and some truth serum, and pull some of those details out of him - or - players, left to their own conclusions, most likely, will fail to appreciate all the work that truly was put in... and just move on.

[RedLancer]

Let me respond with two complementary statements:

1. If you want changes to the game the best approach is to provide saves, with a clear explanation of the issue, that support your argument. This helps focus the efforts of the very small Dev Team.

2. As the Dev Team is very small being supportive will be infinitely more productive than venting your frustrations towards them.

...if you look back on my very first posts on the WitE forum I was once frustrated with aspects of that game. Whilst I've not always got what I've wanted there are many things that being supportive have brought me - unit insignia is one of my proudest.

[DarkHorse2]

Never got any kind of answer to to this. Wow...