Did someone pork the CHS data?

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I can't see anyone voluntarily changing arrival dates of ships ahead by a year or more. This does not sound like something done on purpose.

Without asking, I have been informed this was not only deliberate, but authorized. And, in fairness, I must say that for decades this was practice in mechanical games - to "compress" playing time - and make the Allies sorry initial lot less drawn out. The idea was "things changed from Japanese advantage to Allied advantage - why not do it without taking so long?" The answer, of course, is that Japan then lacks the time to take what she can, and build up defenses and economy. It is not simulation - but it is common practice. But currently there seems to be a consensus to set everything right - as we get to it. Unless we are to take years, this probably means not getting everything for the next release!

These are typos or something, period. Not some play balance conspiracy. They were right earlier but I think a few got corrupted when the editor was uded to change the arrivial ports from San Francisco to Panama.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

IMHO, Ron was correct to add "armor" to the subs, and it was done with a reason, and explained in depth, publicly, on these forums.

There is zero chance it is working fairly - since it is not uniformly present.
It is a skew unfairly in favor of some classes of merchant ships and submarines - and not for most. IF you adopt a standard, it must be a standard - and clearly defined so anyone who comes along can go to real world data - apply the standard - and get the same result. Thus, when asked to add Soviet ships, I would need to know the principle - which was not stated in CHS documentation. Being intimately familiar with the fields now, I seriously doubt there ever was a standard. In any case, with respect to what I did do, CHS managers clearly indicated "go with real data" and NEVER suggested some fictional variation on it. Assigned to do the Soviet Fleet, the major part of which is submarines, no one said "don't forget to armor them!"

I can see some justification for modifying fields in some cases. I am more willing to do this for fields hidden from players than those that appear on unit data tables - which I believe should be honest and accurate. But, for example, I would like to modify the ceilings of AA weapons to reflect effective rather than theoretical ballistic data. So long as it is UNIVERSALLY applied - and STATED in the notes - I think it is a legitimate modification. What I do not see is any justification for adding armor to submarines. It was the dread fear of a sub skipper he would take just one hole from a high velocity gun of any caliber. The hull of a famous German submarine was about 5/8 inch thick steel - and that not armor steel. IF you wanted to discount that - I might say it is fair - but ONLY if you apply it universally to all such vessels. This was not done as far as I can tell.

Is real data pastry for plating? C'mon. 5mm is more than reasonable and is conservative given the all or nothing vulnerability of the model. You are starting to sound like Mr. Logic in Viz Magazine.

Again. As for subs armor was added universally. 1mm per 100' of dive depth rounded up.

Here is an excerpt from Mr Logic from Viz.

Mr Logic is in charge of the till at the local Off-License (Drink Shop).

Armed Robber: No nonsense. Just give me all your money.

Mr Logic: I shall commence by pointing out to you that my demeanour is
not one which could be described as nonsensical. Consequently I can
attest you have no cause to reprimand me on your first point. On to
your second point: Bearing in mind the potentially lethal situation in
which I find myself, to wit: your presence in conjuction with the
presumably loaded firearm which is presently levelled at my cranium, I
will comply with your request comprehensively, albeit reluctantly.
Here, twenty-seven pence.

Armed Robber: Twenty-seven pence? Fuck off. There's more than that
in the till.

Mr Logic: Indeed, undoubtedly so. However your request was for *my*
money. The currency in the till belongs to a third party and is
therefore not "my money". However, if you are still desirous of said
money I would suggest that you re-phrase your original statement to
recognise and incorporate this important distinction.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
These are typos or something, period. Not some play balance conspiracy. They were right earlier but I think a few got corrupted when the editor was uded to change the arrivial ports from San Francisco to Panama.

I also think that is what happened, and I am hoping to correct them all for the next update.

Andrew

[el cid again]

You are missing my point. What i would like is a list of each change, one at a time, with a comparison of the CHS original and what you would like it changed to. Do not just start many threads saying that you can't believe how bad the research was.

You appear to have missed the listings! They have long been posted - and updated - by subject category. For example, aircraft types, aircraft devices, JNAF, JAAF. However, they are not easy to read here. If you (or ANYONE) wants easy to read MS Word documents - and statistical analysis in MS Excel - just send me your email address: trevethans@aol.com. Joe demanded I post the changes line by line, and also the documentary support for them. Just on JAAF and JNAF there are 33 pages of such listings! In the beginning I did it because that was what I was told to do - feeling it slowed me more than half - but over time I came to see it resulted in very high quality work and also that people who don't know me came to see I do diligent and even handed research. So I ended up feeling the process is a good one - after all - if time consuming.

I also need to say I felt the project would take a lot less time than it did. I came to feel a comprehensive review of every field was needed. And having now completed that, I can say it is clear that the vast majority of issues must have come from stock. Further, I feel compelled to say that the data is confusing, incomplete, and subject to interpretation at some points. We are compelled to observe limits imposed by the system, even when not ideal. I have great respect for what you did because I can see there were real reforms in it. I believe I just extended your philosophy in a more comprehensive way. You added important plane types - so did I - for example. [Now submarine aircraft carriers have a bomber to carry - the M6A1; now the nearest thing to a Japanese heavy bomber that was pracitcal is a possibility - the G8N1; and now the G5 can do what it really did - be a great transport - sort of a C51 early in the war - the C51 being a development of the same airframe in the US.] You addressed a serious engine issue. I simply did the same thing for all planes instead of a few late war ones. I do not see us as operating at cross purposes, and I agreed with and preserved the vast majority of your additions/reforms.

[el cid again]

I am not against your work, i am against poorly written changes with no real log.
When you say 'Aircraft altitudes are incorrect', what are you proposing changing?

I have two completely different views of this subject. You need to separate them into categories, so you understand the difference between the system as is (stock and CHS) and the system as I would like it to be (some day).

I will start at the end - and note up front this is NOT what I meant in the posting you are referring to. What I REALLY want, and DID NOT DO, was to come up with a reasonable performance altitude for aircraft. There is hot discussion on some threads (and PM) about this matter. Just because some plane (say a Nate) can reach well over 30,000 feet does not mean it is effective up there! For that reason some players have house rules forbidding missions above a certain altitude. Yet this neglects that some planes (say a B-29) really do operate well at 32,000 feet - and were designed to do that. On the other hand, just reducing aircraft ceilings brings the planes down to the range of AAA. This is also wrong insofar as a ballistic altitude (max ceiling) for AAA is not the same as effective ceiling. [Japanese bombers at 25,000 feet over Clark could not be engaged by US 3 inch AAA - it burst at 22,000 feet - its maximum possible setting.] For that reason, reform of aircraft altitudes, giving turbosupercharged planes a better altitude rating than normal ones, and some low altitude planes a worse rating than normal ones, should only occur at the same time AAA is reduced to effective. Since there was NO permission to do that - I did NOT do it.

My comment referred to the old and present standard of stock and CHS: use service ceiling. When I say plane altitudes are not right - and I posted every case long ago - I mean that the real service ceiling is not in the field in the record. Pure and simple. I also note that the actual ROC data field was similarly wrong. Rarely it was too high. But mostly it was understated for Japanese planes. And in every case you can find it in the appropriate listing. I stated what the correct value is, and where that information can be found. Not that I think it is best to go this way - but there was no agreement to change from that standard.

My tentative recommended standard would be a value exactly halfway between service ceiling and optimum operating altitude. This way a plane that has its OOA at sea level (rare but a real case, see some seaplanes)
still has some sort of ceiling. And a turbosupercharged engine plane, that has a much higher OOA, gets a real advantage over a plane with engines that do not perform well at altitude. ONLY real high altitude planes can fly over the AAA - say a Ki-46.

[el cid again]

These are typos or something, period. Not some play balance conspiracy. They were right earlier but I think a few got corrupted when the editor was uded to change the arrivial ports from San Francisco to Panama.

I have noted some things seem to go wrong without explanation when you are editing. For example, land units often are in the wrong hex (usually one hex off) - so you must go check every one. I think there may be issues with the editors and/or tools we use? If this is correct, it is no one's fault when an error creeps in that way. We just have to carefully check everything.

[el cid again]

Again. As for subs armor was added universally. 1mm per 100' of dive depth rounded up.

Maybe something happened to the data? It is not universally present.

And IF the standard was 1mm to 100 feet - the typical sub would get only 2-3 mm!

And no one told me to do that to the new Soviet Sub classes. IF that is a standard it ought to be defined in the documentation package.

I do not follow the alleged standard logic. I think if you want to say there is armor value in the hull of a sub, it is proportional to its thickness. Test depth is a different subject entirely. The weakest fitting determines the depth it is safe to dive to.

[Ron Saueracker]

What do you think of Mr. Logic? He, Biffa Bacon, Eight Ace, The Parkie and Roger Mellie the Man on the Tellie were my favourite Viz characters. Oh, and the SS inspired Bottom Inspectors![:D]

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Again. As for subs armor was added universally. 1mm per 100' of dive depth rounded up.

Maybe something happened to the data? It is not universally present.

And IF the standard was 1mm to 100 feet - the typical sub would get only 2-3 mm!

And no one told me to do that to the new Soviet Sub classes. IF that is a standard it ought to be defined in the documentation package.

I do not follow the alleged standard logic. I think if you want to say there is armor value in the hull of a sub, it is proportional to its thickness. Test depth is a different subject entirely. The weakest fitting determines the depth it is safe to dive to.

With the new ASW model I suspect the "armor" can be done away with, maybe leaving 1mm on every ship just in principle to simulate they are made of metal and steel. However, if the current ASW/Naval Air Search Model remains as is which have subs easier to spot than large surface ship TFs perhaps some deck armor on subs capable of defeating the endless bomb hits (up to 500 lbs) is in order![:D]

[Sardaukar]

One can always add Surface to Air radar devices..be them actual or defined as "lookouts" if hits seem too frequent... Pity that spotting (didn't actually test that..was more considered about hits) seems uneffected if doing that, but not sure. When there is a will, there is a way...[:D]

[jwilkerson]

original: Oleg Mastruko ... But, now that you asked this, who exactly is "WE" in this case, and who is the Permission Granting Authority (PGA) that asked, or authorised el cid to do this and that? No need to answer, I am just trying to point out the absurdity of the above discussion.

I would like to comment on "the process".

Joe ( me ) being a software guy ... as part of my efforts with CHS, I have tried to bring some bits and pieces of software process to the table.

While our "MODS" are just data MODS ( not code MODS ) ... changing data ... is still a "software thing" ( not a hardware thing ). So software principles are relevant.

Open Source projects have two relevant concepts that I've tried to introduce in CHS.

(1) Gate Keeping

(2) Fork the Code

An Open Source process template would have a "commitee" ( which could be a commitee of one ) who reviews and allows contributors to make changes to the base product. Typically the gate keepers are part of the original creator team, but regardless they are typically charged with somhow preserving some aspect of the original concept ( perhaps in the case of CHS .. the extra focus on historical accuracy ). We are now using a "Peer Review" process as a part of the review process. So each contributor has an assigned "peer reviewer" who looks over their work and approves it to the CHS team prior to final approval ( by the single appointed gate keeper of the moment ) into CHS. This is a good process and has caught a number of errors, typos and other wise. I'm not aware of anyone who is in opposition to this process.

In the event that a contributor desires to move things in a different direction from the original open source project. Or in the event that a contributors work is refused by the gatekeeper. The contributor is always free to "fork the code"... In Open Source speak, this just means the contributor takes the "product" makes his changes and re-publishes the product as something different. And in the Open Source world, this is all perfectly fine and intended. The only restriction, is that the "forker" is no longer presenting the forked version as if it were the original "product". It is something new and different. And actually, if I'm not mistaken, this has already happened to CHS. And may well happen again. And this is fine !

So, I am mainly trying to discuss where "permission" is relevant and where it is not. It is relevant in open source, if is desired to add the contribution to the original product. It is not required if the ccontributor wishes to "fork the code".

And BTW - I "asked" El Cid to work with me on making some changes to CHS requested by Andrew. "Approval" for my changes and separately for El Cid's changes ( or for any ccontributors changes ) comes from the peer review process.

I hope this helps clarify our process.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

One can always add Surface to Air radar devices..be them actual or defined as "lookouts" if hits seem too frequent... Pity that spotting (didn't actually test that..was more considered about hits) seems uneffected if doing that, but not sure. When there is a will, there is a way...[:D]

That is something I have been considering, but I have yet to find the time to comprehensively test it. The concept WILL work (I did a quick test), but if something like this is added, we would need to be sure that it is necessary, and that the values we choose are OK. On a related topic, we ARE adding some actual air search radars to subs, when they were present.

Andrew

[el cid again]

What do you think of Mr. Logic? He, Biffa Bacon, Eight Ace, The Parkie and Roger Mellie the Man on the Tellie were my favourite Viz characters. Oh, and the SS inspired Bottom Inspectors!

Are these cartoon characters? You need to know I do not watch TV and have zero knowledge of pop culture. It is the secret of how I get time to read and write.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

What do you think of Mr. Logic? He, Biffa Bacon, Eight Ace, The Parkie and Roger Mellie the Man on the Tellie were my favourite Viz characters. Oh, and the SS inspired Bottom Inspectors!

Are these cartoon characters? You need to know I do not watch TV and have zero knowledge of pop culture. It is the secret of how I get time to read and write.

No, UK Viz magazine, came out late 70's early 80s. Bathroom humour for the potty reader. Got it's start with punk kids and Virgin backed it....boooom. Took off and is still one of the most popular pubs in UK.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: el cid again

What do you think of Mr. Logic? He, Biffa Bacon, Eight Ace, The Parkie and Roger Mellie the Man on the Tellie were my favourite Viz characters. Oh, and the SS inspired Bottom Inspectors!

Are these cartoon characters? You need to know I do not watch TV and have zero knowledge of pop culture. It is the secret of how I get time to read and write.

No, UK Viz magazine, came out late 70's early 80s. Bathroom humour for the potty reader. Got it's start with punk kids and Virgin backed it....boooom. Took off and is still one of the most popular pubs in UK.

And apparently in Canada, too. Like Sid, I never heard of any of these figures, either. It must be that I live a kind of sheltered life as well. (But then I'd guess I'm one of the few people in North America who never watched a single episode of Friends. [8D])

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: el cid again



Are these cartoon characters? You need to know I do not watch TV and have zero knowledge of pop culture. It is the secret of how I get time to read and write.

No, UK Viz magazine, came out late 70's early 80s. Bathroom humour for the potty reader. Got it's start with punk kids and Virgin backed it....boooom. Took off and is still one of the most popular pubs in UK.

And apparently in Canada, too. Like Sid, I never heard of any of these figures, either. It must be that I live a kind of sheltered life as well. (But then I'd guess I'm one of the few people in North America who never watched a single episode of Friends. [8D])

Isubscribed to many interesting publications for my bar. Viz was great but had I not been a rabid rugby player I most likely never would have met the international travellers inherent to the sport and as a result,never heard of Viz. Rogger Mellies "profanisaurus" was brilliant. All sorts of new and dirty words.

eg.

Mr. Brown; A turd. "Pardon me, be right back in a jiff, Mr. Brown is at the door."[8D]

Donkey punch; Striking a woman in the back of the head while mounting her from behind to aid in the pleasure of copulation.[X(]

here is an example... http://www.play.com/play247.asp?pa=prom ... tle=664984

[Sardaukar]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

That is something I have been considering, but I have yet to find the time to comprehensively test it. The concept WILL work (I did a quick test), but if something like this is added, we would need to be sure that it is necessary, and that the values we choose are OK. On a related topic, we ARE adding some actual air search radars to subs, when they were present.

Andrew

True that. I'm waiting 1.8 patch to see if it's necessary. Since I still play with 1.6, I think it worked fine for that release. Change in air-ASW in betas (and prolly in 1.8) may make my changes too powerful/unnecessary. Anyhow, keep up the good work !! I play almost exclusively CHS nowadays, and like it.
I'm also inclined to try aircraft weapon firepower reduction in DFalcon way..but also waiting for 1.8 before getting into that.

[el cid again]

What do you think of Mr. Logic? He, Biffa Bacon, Eight Ace, The Parkie and Roger Mellie the Man on the Tellie were my favourite Viz characters. Oh, and the SS inspired Bottom Inspectors!

Are these cartoon characters? You need to know I do not watch TV and have zero knowledge of pop culture. It is the secret of how I get time to read and write.


No, UK Viz magazine, came out late 70's early 80s. Bathroom humour for the potty reader. Got it's start with punk kids and Virgin backed it....boooom. Took off and is still one of the most popular pubs in UK.

I barely understand what you said. I don't go to pubs either - although I used to on patrol as a military police type. [In the old days - no more - the Navy assigned this as a sort of extra task on days you were on duty. If you were good at it - they always made you do it. The key to being good was psychology. Once, in Hong Kong, two USN sailors ran up and said there was a confrontation in a pub. I and my partner ran over and found a tiny number of Americans confronting three times their number of Aussies. And Aussies are like football players - huge by our standards - since they can select who they want. Everyone stopped at the sight of our SP arm bands and waited for me to say something. That meant there was peace already - if only I could keep it going. So I said:
"It is not clear to me exactly what is going on here. But it IS clear to me the Americans are in the wrong. It just isn't practical for the Aussies to be wrong." At which, everyone laughed, and it was over.]

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

What do you think of Mr. Logic? He, Biffa Bacon, Eight Ace, The Parkie and Roger Mellie the Man on the Tellie were my favourite Viz characters. Oh, and the SS inspired Bottom Inspectors!

Are these cartoon characters? You need to know I do not watch TV and have zero knowledge of pop culture. It is the secret of how I get time to read and write.


No, UK Viz magazine, came out late 70's early 80s. Bathroom humour for the potty reader. Got it's start with punk kids and Virgin backed it....boooom. Took off and is still one of the most popular pubs in UK.

I barely understand what you said. I don't go to pubs either - although I used to on patrol as a military police type. [In the old days - no more - the Navy assigned this as a sort of extra task on days you were on duty. If you were good at it - they always made you do it. The key to being good was psychology. Once, in Hong Kong, two USN sailors ran up and said there was a confrontation in a pub. I and my partner ran over and found a tiny number of Americans confronting three times their number of Aussies. And Aussies are like football players - huge by our standards - since they can select who they want. Everyone stopped at the sight of our SP arm bands and waited for me to say something. That meant there was peace already - if only I could keep it going. So I said:
"It is not clear to me exactly what is going on here. But it IS clear to me the Americans are in the wrong. It just isn't practical for the Aussies to be wrong." At which, everyone laughed, and it was over.]

[;)] Pubs...as in publications.

[Wallymanowar]

I have been reading all of this with a sense of Deja-vu. I am intensely interested in historical OOB's and with this in mind I decided to tackle the OOB's in Steel Panthers. With a sense of considerable idealism I thought that I could help out with the restructuring of the OOB's for that game because I had a serious problem with the way that it was laid out. Regardless of the fact that the game was fully enjoyable strictly as a game, I felt that it severely lacked in historical realism and was simply 'wrong' and 'unplayable' - much like some bull-headed people on this forum feel about WITP. Once I got involved in the restructuring of the OOB's using the editor I discovered how difficult all of this is and developed a sense of empathy for the developers of the game and the problems they encounter. Even then, the team I was involved with developed a new set of OOB's which were implemented in the game. There was still considerable heated discussion about what changes were implemented - indeed, I think they are still at it but I haven't checked back in quite a few months. I, myself, was not satisfied, but I came to the conclusion that if I wasn't satisfied I could still make all the changes I wanted to on my own and still enjoy the game. The great thing about WITP is that it allows for this too.

I have gotten involved in changing things towards CHS's model mostly by default. Back when Andrew was asking about changes to the map because he was making his own, I supplied some information about Canada's involvement. Recently I took a good look at his map because I was considering doing a mod of my own and found that Andrew had graciously given me some credit. Looking at his map I thought I saw a major error - it turned out I was wrong - so I e-mailed him concerning it along with a host of minor problems I had found. The purpose of me pointing out minor mistakes with the map is not to change the map - it is Andrew's Map - but to give an alternative to him. He has frequently pointed out that he is open to suggestions for improvement and responded to my suggestions very positively.

Now I am reading about another player's ideas about what is wrong with the game and with the mod (CHS). It seems I am just reading the same arguments that were made about the game in the first place - eventually I expect to hear somebody saying that CHS is 'unworkable' and 'unplayable'. I also read that that player is now designing his own mod (RHS). Well, good for you, if you aren't satisifed with the mods that are made then make your own because that's the only way you'll be satisfied. Even that is just a stop-gap measure because you'll realize that the hard-coded things that you don't like will make it 'impossible' for you to enjoy your mod. What you have to realize, and stop complaining about, is that this is Matrix's game. They designed it and they coded it. If you aren't happy with the product get your money back, design a mod that works for you, or design your own game.

Finally, as a suggestion to all mod developers, there are certain things you have to consider.

First is all the things that are hard coded. There are three ways to get around those.

1- Ask Matrix to recode them. Don't argue about Matrix's willingness to do this. Mike Wood has already shown a great deal of accomodation and arguing with him, the other developers, and the moderators will only cause them to refuse to work with you at all, and totally abandon this product.

2- Consider the hard-coded issues and accept them.

3- Consider the hard-coded issues and provide work-arounds. This can mean changing some of the data that we can control in order to accomodate the changes. The drawback is that it means sacrificing historical accuracy to some degree.

Second is balance. Are the changes that you are making going to unbalance the game and make it unwinnable as one side or the other. This is something that can only be determined through extensive play-testing.

Finally, for CHS especially, I suggest that you set up a design commitee that will decide the final adoption of any mods based upon concensus of the people involved in the mod. You will always have one or two members who will vehemently oppose some, or all, of your changes, but until you have one overriding authority you will always be beset by disagreement of the sort shown in this thread.

That's my two cents in this argument[:)]