so it doesn't feel quite so bad this time around.
It seems all my OOB modifications will, for various reasons, not be making their appearance any time soon. All praise, or blame, for anything in the v7.1 OOBs rests elsewhere, my shoulders are free of all but the mortar modifications - assuming they make it in.
I resign as 'OOB Poohbah' effective immeadiately,
Brian
Well I've been made a fool of before...
Moderator: MOD_SPWaW
-
brianleeprice
- Posts: 134
- Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2001 8:00 am
-
David Heath
- Posts: 2529
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2000 5:00 pm
Hi Guys
I think why is a very important issue here. The main problem with the OOB's is there are a lot of reason for some of the OOB's strange designs, or what would seem strange for those who do not fully understand what is going on under the hood. Most of these issues are mostly do to limits within the game code. Brian ideas were good on paper but could have been very poor on gameplay do to these code issues. As we have said many times before things with SPWaW and the OOB's are not just simple cut and dry answers.
Since Paul knows most of the special OOB and code issues we are dealing with here it seemed best to have Paul complete them.
Of course any changes we got or get by Brian or anyone else will be added into the new 7.1 OOB if possible. We hope that Paul will be placing the finishing touches on the SPWaW OOB for v7.1 in the next few weeks. Paul will reviewing the requests on the OOB forum and adding as many as time permits.
Once v7.1 of SPWaW is release Paul will be joing the rest of us full time of Combat Leader. We like to thank Brian and his team for their help as well as everyone else who taken the time to write and help with the OOB process.
[ February 19, 2002: Message edited by: David Heath ]</p>
I think why is a very important issue here. The main problem with the OOB's is there are a lot of reason for some of the OOB's strange designs, or what would seem strange for those who do not fully understand what is going on under the hood. Most of these issues are mostly do to limits within the game code. Brian ideas were good on paper but could have been very poor on gameplay do to these code issues. As we have said many times before things with SPWaW and the OOB's are not just simple cut and dry answers.
Since Paul knows most of the special OOB and code issues we are dealing with here it seemed best to have Paul complete them.
Of course any changes we got or get by Brian or anyone else will be added into the new 7.1 OOB if possible. We hope that Paul will be placing the finishing touches on the SPWaW OOB for v7.1 in the next few weeks. Paul will reviewing the requests on the OOB forum and adding as many as time permits.
Once v7.1 of SPWaW is release Paul will be joing the rest of us full time of Combat Leader. We like to thank Brian and his team for their help as well as everyone else who taken the time to write and help with the OOB process.
[ February 19, 2002: Message edited by: David Heath ]</p>
-
brianleeprice
- Posts: 134
- Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2001 8:00 am
Well since why has come into it, though I was trying to avoid the issue, I'll give the reason why I resigned.
It was not because of the issue of cost changes though Paul refused to allow almost all - neglecting the fact that fine tuning is required.
It was not over the issue of backwards compatiblity - though my team's tests showed that it is possible to achieve especially since the tests showed that assault code works a bit differently than Paul believes.
It was not because of Paul's insistence on adding numerous units that, historically accurate or not, not only totally break backwards compatibility but also make it impossible to finally put a correction in place for the SP2 inherited 0.1 delay artillery for any nation bug; or correct motorized formations for proper use with C&C on; or add more flexibility and historical accuracy in formation purchases.
It was because Paul gave me a set of guidelines, told me I had free reign, and then yanked the rug out from under me at the first point of contention.
My team's ideas not only worked well on paper they worked well throughout all testing and review.
Sincerely,
Brian Price
PS: My thanks to the team and all that assisted our efforts and my apologies that I mislead you into thinking we could actually achieve something worthwhile.
It was not because of the issue of cost changes though Paul refused to allow almost all - neglecting the fact that fine tuning is required.
It was not over the issue of backwards compatiblity - though my team's tests showed that it is possible to achieve especially since the tests showed that assault code works a bit differently than Paul believes.
It was not because of Paul's insistence on adding numerous units that, historically accurate or not, not only totally break backwards compatibility but also make it impossible to finally put a correction in place for the SP2 inherited 0.1 delay artillery for any nation bug; or correct motorized formations for proper use with C&C on; or add more flexibility and historical accuracy in formation purchases.
It was because Paul gave me a set of guidelines, told me I had free reign, and then yanked the rug out from under me at the first point of contention.
My team's ideas not only worked well on paper they worked well throughout all testing and review.
Sincerely,
Brian Price
PS: My thanks to the team and all that assisted our efforts and my apologies that I mislead you into thinking we could actually achieve something worthwhile.
-
RichardTheFirst
- Posts: 460
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Algés, Lisbon - Portugal
- Contact:
Brian, since yours OOB seems to be better than those that Matrixgames will publish (or maybe not) ... Will you be so nice of offer your work to the SP community as an alternate set of OOBs so we all, democratically, can decide which one it's the best ?
Saludos a todos,
Cona.
Saludos a todos,
Cona.
"War is much too serious to be entrusted to the military." - Tallyrand
Hey Brian:
I became a fan of yours when you answered my post on backwards compatablity. First, you took the time to answer, and second you did so without sounding condescending. The Emperor is still naked, and looks like he will remain so...
But all too often posts were answered with the attitude: "You don't understand, won't understand,... so we're not going to tell you."
This may be do to the search feature being inactive, and having the same cycle of questions monthly.
I can't find that original thread to reference, but I hope you remember.
I came to SPWAW from the Civilization community, looking for a highly modifiable Modern wargame. (still waiting patiently)
It was not uncommon in Civ forums for someone to have 5-10 different Mods installed. Sometimes there existed 4-5 different Mods for the same thing.
Apolyton
I have every version of SPWAW installed on my machine since 4.5. There is room for many more, and many sub versions. I can manage to keep my OOB's and mod's straight.
Therefore, I for one, encourage you to continue your work. I offer my assistance, if I can do anything. And I would be honored to have a copy of your finished OOB's if you choose to release them.
[ February 19, 2002: Message edited by: Dogfish ]</p>
I became a fan of yours when you answered my post on backwards compatablity. First, you took the time to answer, and second you did so without sounding condescending. The Emperor is still naked, and looks like he will remain so...
But all too often posts were answered with the attitude: "You don't understand, won't understand,... so we're not going to tell you."
This may be do to the search feature being inactive, and having the same cycle of questions monthly.
I can't find that original thread to reference, but I hope you remember.
I came to SPWAW from the Civilization community, looking for a highly modifiable Modern wargame. (still waiting patiently)
It was not uncommon in Civ forums for someone to have 5-10 different Mods installed. Sometimes there existed 4-5 different Mods for the same thing.
Apolyton
I have every version of SPWAW installed on my machine since 4.5. There is room for many more, and many sub versions. I can manage to keep my OOB's and mod's straight.
Therefore, I for one, encourage you to continue your work. I offer my assistance, if I can do anything. And I would be honored to have a copy of your finished OOB's if you choose to release them.
[ February 19, 2002: Message edited by: Dogfish ]</p>
When you're wounded and left
on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out
to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle
and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier.
Kipling
------------------
on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out
to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle
and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier.
Kipling
------------------
-
ubertechie
- Posts: 135
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Rye, East Sussex, UK
- Contact:
Brian
All smells a bit of fish here - althoug its never goignto be easy for a company that lets so many people be part of the development process - its a shame though as i think that you and your team where doing a much needed role out of love of the game. Personally i would like to say thanks for the info that you have provided to me recently - also having recently resigned from work for similar reasons i can whol heartedly empatize with you
Chin up old boy
Cheers
Ubertechie
All smells a bit of fish here - althoug its never goignto be easy for a company that lets so many people be part of the development process - its a shame though as i think that you and your team where doing a much needed role out of love of the game. Personally i would like to say thanks for the info that you have provided to me recently - also having recently resigned from work for similar reasons i can whol heartedly empatize with you
Chin up old boy
Cheers
Ubertechie
Brian, you were doing a fine work. For free and for love of spwaw. It is not useless, continue with it. You can share it with the community. I'm sure a lot of wargamers want to see your work. Can't understand what's going on...
Thank you very much.
¡Siempre adelante!
Thank you very much.
¡Siempre adelante!
Desperta ferro!
Miquel Guasch Aparicio
Miquel Guasch Aparicio
-
David Heath
- Posts: 2529
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2000 5:00 pm
Hi Everyone
Well this was a surprise and real nice way to start the day. Well it will not be the first time that lack of Communication has killed a project. Since it will be a waste of everyones time to debate this since I seemed to have be giving the wrong facts I will just dust myself off and move on. <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">
We are going to finish the v7.1 and the OOB's and as we have always done in the pass we are going to listen to you the gamers. If there is one thing that can be said its that Matrix Games listens to its our fans. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
If a post or an email by myself or Paul has gone unanswered it is not that we do not want to answer you it just the limited time we have to get all of our projects done, reply to emails and placed posts on the forums. This is the main reason we asked gmenfan to help us here and a big help he has been.
I extend this offer to Brian, his team members and everyone else. If you know of a OOB mistake, OOB correction, or tests showing that we may be doing something wrong. Please post it in the OOB Conference on this forum and we will do our best to fix them as we have over the last seven versions. Our goal has always been to make a better SPWaW. <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">
Once v7.1 is released it will be our final efforts as we move forward with Combat Leader. We will be looking for help with our Combat Leader OOB's and posting chances for people to join the team and help out. Once we release v7.1 we welcome anyone making changes and posting them after all this is what the SPWaW community is all about. <img src="biggrin.gif" border="0">
[ February 19, 2002: Message edited by: David Heath ]</p>
Well this was a surprise and real nice way to start the day. Well it will not be the first time that lack of Communication has killed a project. Since it will be a waste of everyones time to debate this since I seemed to have be giving the wrong facts I will just dust myself off and move on. <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">
We are going to finish the v7.1 and the OOB's and as we have always done in the pass we are going to listen to you the gamers. If there is one thing that can be said its that Matrix Games listens to its our fans. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
If a post or an email by myself or Paul has gone unanswered it is not that we do not want to answer you it just the limited time we have to get all of our projects done, reply to emails and placed posts on the forums. This is the main reason we asked gmenfan to help us here and a big help he has been.
I extend this offer to Brian, his team members and everyone else. If you know of a OOB mistake, OOB correction, or tests showing that we may be doing something wrong. Please post it in the OOB Conference on this forum and we will do our best to fix them as we have over the last seven versions. Our goal has always been to make a better SPWaW. <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">
Once v7.1 is released it will be our final efforts as we move forward with Combat Leader. We will be looking for help with our Combat Leader OOB's and posting chances for people to join the team and help out. Once we release v7.1 we welcome anyone making changes and posting them after all this is what the SPWaW community is all about. <img src="biggrin.gif" border="0">
[ February 19, 2002: Message edited by: David Heath ]</p>
I want to suport David:
1) Having been around gaming over 40+ years I can verify there never has been a game publisher even close to the level of response to users as I see on an everyday basis from Matrix. In other words, we ain't ever had it so good.
2) Why the fuss over OOB's? You don't like the ones that came with the game, change it to suit yourself. Flexibility is the beauty of W@W - it keeps me coming back when other games are dead on the HD. I want my SS troopers to carry a Panzershreck, I change it in the OOB. If it goofs up game play I change it back.
The real problem that I see is for the newcomer - and those who might be returning after a time away from W@W - to make head or tail of the available OOB's.
I would like to see a centralized list of OOB's that would incldue: The game version(s) it was intended to be used with; the date of OOB creation; the scenario and/or campaigns it was designed for; a brief explanation of the changes it makes and the designer's name. Then we could pick and choose to our heart's content.
This would not preclude anyone from doing their own OOB's and using them - see above - it would simply give us more and better information about the topic.
Just my two kopeks worth,
Bing
1) Having been around gaming over 40+ years I can verify there never has been a game publisher even close to the level of response to users as I see on an everyday basis from Matrix. In other words, we ain't ever had it so good.
2) Why the fuss over OOB's? You don't like the ones that came with the game, change it to suit yourself. Flexibility is the beauty of W@W - it keeps me coming back when other games are dead on the HD. I want my SS troopers to carry a Panzershreck, I change it in the OOB. If it goofs up game play I change it back.
The real problem that I see is for the newcomer - and those who might be returning after a time away from W@W - to make head or tail of the available OOB's.
I would like to see a centralized list of OOB's that would incldue: The game version(s) it was intended to be used with; the date of OOB creation; the scenario and/or campaigns it was designed for; a brief explanation of the changes it makes and the designer's name. Then we could pick and choose to our heart's content.
This would not preclude anyone from doing their own OOB's and using them - see above - it would simply give us more and better information about the topic.
Just my two kopeks worth,
Bing
"For Those That Fought For It, Freedom Has a Taste And A Meaning The Protected Will Never Know. " -
From the 101st Airborne Division Association Website
From the 101st Airborne Division Association Website
Bing, the problem is that Brian was ask to take charge of the oob and worked hard on it. However, due to lack of communication, all of his works came to naught.
I don't thinks either side was at fault, it was the frustration of seeing all your work gone out the window.
I don't thinks either side was at fault, it was the frustration of seeing all your work gone out the window.
"My friends, remember this, that there are no bad herbs, and no bad men; there are only bad cultivators."
Les Miserables
Les Miserables
As I'm not aware of all that went on, am playing catch up. What exactly was it you put in that isn't going to make it, Brian? I know how it is, since I worked on these originally over 2 years ago, and am aware of the "oob blues"! Not always is it a case of just can't use something, or whatever, like the motorized infantry, for example. At first, there wasn't such a thing, then people clamored for indigenous transport as part of the platoon for these troops, so it was added. Well, then the trucks would rush the front lines, and soak up the then uncontrolled op-fire, people clamored for this is unfair. The code was changed to make trucks retreat to the rear at enemy sight, now it appears that with CC on, the trucks are not able to change orders, and are a hinderance. So, it seems that the original doctrine of seperate platoons for transport was sound, although a pain for quick purchase of motorized units!! I don't know what all that you had done for the oob's I'm afraid, so can't help here much, just curious!! <img src="biggrin.gif" border="0">
-
David Heath
- Posts: 2529
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2000 5:00 pm
Hi Guys
From our point of view this is really just a lack of communication and nothing more. I fully extend my hand to Brian and his testers for any suggestions to do with the OOB or SPWaW. Guys if you have any changes or have conducted tests of changes that will help the game we are open and want to hear them they do not have to be dropped.
Mike Amos example is a perfect case of a good idea that does not work 100% or can caused other problems. Here is another post from the OOB forum about changing the unit slots and Mike Wood warning (SPWaW Programmer)
_________________________________________________
Hello...
I wrote the Soviet, German and Amrican OOB files from which the rest were developed, back in version #1 and modified the existing structures later, in version #5.
I also wrote the artificial intelligence and force choice strategies that the computer opponent uses.
Any modifications to the original formation slots used by the computer opponent can only choose to confuse it as to force composition, deployment and movement.
For example, if the computer opponent expects a section of mortars to be assigned from batallion because the original OOB had one, it will not buy them as seperate units. This will leave it short the onboard artillery that it expects to have during the game.
Modification of other formation slots may or may not work well with the command and control code.
I therefore recommend caution when making modifications.
Thanks for Your time...
Michael Wood
_________________________________________________
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Brian Price:
To this point, at least in recent OOB versions, the infantry formations have seem to relied on the 'average formation of general type' mixed with a bit of the 'convient force package' theory. No doubt much of that has been based on the difficulty of gaining useful information from researching the topic...
Thank you,
Brian
This is not to say no changes can not be made, but to understand what gamers may not know that is under the hood or how something may throw off game play.
Version 7.1 OOB's and EXE will be better in then v7.0. Remember if you are unhappy with what we do that us why we provided an editor.
From our point of view this is really just a lack of communication and nothing more. I fully extend my hand to Brian and his testers for any suggestions to do with the OOB or SPWaW. Guys if you have any changes or have conducted tests of changes that will help the game we are open and want to hear them they do not have to be dropped.
Mike Amos example is a perfect case of a good idea that does not work 100% or can caused other problems. Here is another post from the OOB forum about changing the unit slots and Mike Wood warning (SPWaW Programmer)
_________________________________________________
Hello...
I wrote the Soviet, German and Amrican OOB files from which the rest were developed, back in version #1 and modified the existing structures later, in version #5.
I also wrote the artificial intelligence and force choice strategies that the computer opponent uses.
Any modifications to the original formation slots used by the computer opponent can only choose to confuse it as to force composition, deployment and movement.
For example, if the computer opponent expects a section of mortars to be assigned from batallion because the original OOB had one, it will not buy them as seperate units. This will leave it short the onboard artillery that it expects to have during the game.
Modification of other formation slots may or may not work well with the command and control code.
I therefore recommend caution when making modifications.
Thanks for Your time...
Michael Wood
_________________________________________________
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Brian Price:
To this point, at least in recent OOB versions, the infantry formations have seem to relied on the 'average formation of general type' mixed with a bit of the 'convient force package' theory. No doubt much of that has been based on the difficulty of gaining useful information from researching the topic...
Thank you,
Brian
This is not to say no changes can not be made, but to understand what gamers may not know that is under the hood or how something may throw off game play.
Version 7.1 OOB's and EXE will be better in then v7.0. Remember if you are unhappy with what we do that us why we provided an editor.
-
RichardTheFirst
- Posts: 460
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Algés, Lisbon - Portugal
- Contact:
David:
I think the lack of communication between you guys in Matrix is even worst than I thought.
Why are you talking about extending a hand to Brian's suggestions when we all saw a post from Paul Vebber some time ago saying that Brian Price was officialy in charge of all the OOB's?
I think the lack of communication between you guys in Matrix is even worst than I thought.
Why are you talking about extending a hand to Brian's suggestions when we all saw a post from Paul Vebber some time ago saying that Brian Price was officialy in charge of all the OOB's?
[ February 19, 2002: Message edited by: RichardTheFirst ]</p>Originally posted by Paul Vebber:
Brian has taken on the lead role for further development of the SP:WaW OOBs. IF you have questions input or gripes about the 7.1 OOBs when they are officially released (hopefully this weekend) Brian has the conn on the future course for developemnt.
Thanks Brian!
(cue bumper music: "Welcome to the Jungle", Guns and Roses... <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> )
-
Supervisor
- Posts: 5160
- Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2004 12:00 am
Here you go Richard, that smell is just rotten oysters. SPWAW OOB Brian Price Poohbah
-
brianleeprice
- Posts: 134
- Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2001 8:00 am
I'll restate that I resigned because of having the rug pulled out from underneath us across the board by Paul. Basically all of the work the team and I had done was thrown out and not just the latest work, heck we'd have had to restart from scratch starting with the preliminary v7.1's sent by Paul. Paul isn't here to defend himself and I'm not going to say that he was right or wrong from Matrix's point of view on these things but I felt it was pointless to continue in light of my new understanding of the 'plan'.Originally posted by Warhorse:
As I'm not aware of all that went on, am playing catch up. What exactly was it you put in that isn't going to make it, Brian? I know how it is, since I worked on these originally over 2 years ago, and am aware of the "oob blues"! Not always is it a case of just can't use something, or whatever, like the motorized infantry, for example. At first, there wasn't such a thing, then people clamored for indigenous transport as part of the platoon for these troops, so it was added. Well, then the trucks would rush the front lines, and soak up the then uncontrolled op-fire, people clamored for this is unfair. The code was changed to make trucks retreat to the rear at enemy sight, now it appears that with CC on, the trucks are not able to change orders, and are a hinderance. So, it seems that the original doctrine of seperate platoons for transport was sound, although a pain for quick purchase of motorized units!! I don't know what all that you had done for the oob's I'm afraid, so can't help here much, just curious!! <img src="biggrin.gif" border="0">
As to the exact changes that would not be going in:
1) All cost 'fine tuning' - mainly adjustment to crew served and unarmored AA units. No biggie, just being thorough.
2) Workaround to the old SP2 inherited '0.1 delay' by any nation to any hex for the 0 unit artillery piece of a formation. The workaround was not perfect but it did additionally solve the problem of the 0 unit artillery piece 'forgetting' it's last target hex. And led to what may well be more historically correct leg infantry formations.
3) Full backwards compatibility with v6.1. Note that this involved having to throw out a number of post v7.0 changes introduced into v7.1 by Paul or someone else. Basically we were going back to v6.1 infantry units, unit slot order, and ammo positioning. We were thoroughly testing assault behavior to make sure we didn't reintroduce any problems there.
4) Offboard artillery load outs reverted to v6.1 values - this really was a cost adjustment in disguise as it was impossible to adjust them directly.
5) Motorized formation restructuring - in order to work 'realistically' with C&C on we modified the motorized formations to keep the trucks and infantry seperated - this had been undone in the prelim v7.1s - however we did it in such a way as to avoid the heavy truck platoon carrying a platoon and a half mess from v7.0. Also we avoided having three different types of transport with three different speeds.
6) Infantry formation restructuring - this had a number of different forms depending on formation type. Basically we were shooting for a 'least common denominator' formation approach and getting as inline with general doctrine as possible under the limitations - this was made possible in part by 2) above. Probably the biggest was removal of divisional, regimental, and independant assets from all but elite company formations. This is part of what made 5) above possible.
7) This is a small one, but was one of those 'nice' things for those who play with C&C on - we were making a special code '21' command car formation for each nation. It sounds simple - but believe me it isn't.
As you can see, the changes were interlinked to some degree - once one was removed, the others began to unravel. Oh some of them weren't all that important and could've been lived without. Some cost adjustments would have been nice and I'm pretty certain that most would have agreed, but they were by no means a 'back breaker issue'.
I stated at the very start of this whole episode that my primary criteria driving everything else was backwards compatibility with existing scenarios, campaigns, and mega-campaigns. I could care less about any internal Matrix political problems in the backwards compatibility issue - I believed it was important for us, the players, and for the scenario designers who have been put through the wringer by all the changes.
I'll admit I posted out of anger and haste in the beginning of this thread, but damnit, I was angry! I think most people would have been.
Once burned twice shy though, I've adopted a wait and see attitude. If there is sufficient demand after v7.1 is released I'll try to reform the team and finish the work we started.
Brian