Matrix Games Forums

And I'm officially disgusted by this thread.... hehehe

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

ORIGINAL: Rendova
We all have a little 8 year old in us[:D]

Hey, now. I have never had a little eight-year-old in ME.

didn't mean it in a Micheal Jackson sort of way [:-]

Gonna get us shut down by the FCC!!!!!! thanks alot.[:-]

Got to get my own little theory in on this thread before it gets shut down! [;)]

Are you an allied fanboy? Not sure if your sympathies for the allied cause are a bit too extreme? Take this easy test and decide!

The war in the Pacific went from roughly Dec 1941 to Sep 1945. So WITP should model a game on that conflict that is able to be played by 2 players for how long:

1. Dec 1941 to Sep 1945, allowing room for great allied players to finish the war in 44 and great jap players to stretch it out until 1946.

2. Dec 1941 to June 1942 - if the japs are able to mount any sort of resistance after june 1942 the game model just doesn't work.

3. Well actually, the war was over before it began, so technically any result the japs got at pearl harbour, or any other conflict were flukes and shouldn't be modelled.

Come on people! If Frag had posted a combat report from Pearl (like the reports that happen about half the time) where Kido Butai just doesn't do NEARLY as well as they did historically, would this thread be nearly as long?

Probably - because the allied fanboys STILL wouldn't be happy, and find reasons to bitch and whine and push their own agenda. [8|]

When Raver and I do out big BETA PBEM that we have planned, should we post an AAR in the public forum? It would make lots of people happy, sure, it would try to inform people about the game, sure, but it would also make lots of people who have posted on this thread very, very unhappy when I crush the USN like an empty coke can. [:D]

What's the point?? [:-]

ORIGINAL: Luskan
What's the point?? [:-]

After reading your post, that was my question.

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

ORIGINAL: Luskan
What's the point?? [:-]

After reading your post, that was my question.

You can look at his banana and still ask that? [:D]

I'll look at his cabana, and I'll look at his bandana, I'll even sit on his divana, but I ain't looking at his banana.

ORIGINAL: Luskan

Come on people! If Frag had posted a combat report from Pearl (like the reports that happen about half the time) where Kido Butai just doesn't do NEARLY as well as they did historically, would this thread be nearly as long?

Personally, I thought Frag posted exactly what he said he posted..., a really "high end
of the probablility table" PH strike result. My only comment on his results was that it
would have been nice if the programming would have kept the "torpedo hits" to those
targets on "Battleship Row" that were historically vulnerable to them. I made a simple
suggestion how this might be done. I had no trouble with his overall result. If you roll
the dice often enough "boxcars" is going to come up...or in Frag's terms, "Christmas
will come early". Actually, I tend to side with those who would like to see a scenario
start just after the PH raid, guaranteeing the Japanese player at least the historical
result. I'm all for the Japanese player having the freedom to do anything that was
reasonably possible. He's got a tough "row to hoe" overall, and deserves every actual
historic chance available.

ORIGINAL: Rendova

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Brady (who thinks like an adult, but spells like an 8-year old) and YOU (who
spells like an adult, but acts like an 8-year old.

Not that there's anything wrong with that...

We all have a little 8 year old in us[:D]

In the spirit of this thread's digression...What did one child molester say to the other? Hey, can I borrow your eight year old, mine's ripped?[X(]

Good post, Mike. As someone who will be playing the Japanese at least as frequently as the Allies, I hope there will be several alternative starting possibilities to explore.

I have never been convinced that the Pearl Harbor strike was the best application of the primary Japanese carrier strength in the Pacific. At the same time, repeated game play may change my mind on that.

It's a shame that the game is unable to model the inability of the inboard side BBs to be hit with torpedoes (not to mention Pennsylvania in drydock), but that's just too much detail to expect, I think.

The AARs covering early action seem to me to be pretty good. The one deficiency I see is the same one we've seen in UV: game players put all their assets to use all the time, resulting in a far bloodier war than was seen historically. As was discussed back in the early days, this is probably unavoidable and is at least held somewhat in check by such things as fatigue, low morale, routine system damage, and the like.

In short, I see little to complain or debate about. Let's get the freakin' thing done already.

Now, back to the nasty streak of perversion that has worked its way into the discussion.

Ron, that was awful. What do Michael Jackson and Wal-Mart have in common? Boys' jeans, half off.

No worries, Santa - this has happened to all of us now and then... [:D]

(okay, this one came late)

You really should program this, it is surely sooooooooooooooooooooooooooo easy....

It would be easy (certainly no more challenging, in general, than the parts of the algorithm that attempt to account for TF speed, flak, CAP and so forth). Just another element in a complex simulation.

For example, at least 50% of all tax software code falls in the category that Batchwhatever would call 'exception programming.' That doesn't stop people from releasing products like TurboTax. (They are, of course, held to a higher standard. That sort of software "matters" in the real world. No one would argue that it is appropriate, for example, to tell people who want to use ACRS depreciation rather than linear depreciation that they just can't have it in their product because the programmer fears his abilities may not be up to the task. Likewise, no vendor would argue that your Form 1040 tax prep software should not have to determine whether or not Alternative Minimum Tax applies to your income tax returm.)

In all the examples muddied about in this thread, the question should not be "is it doable?" but rather "is it worth doing?" No one is likely to convince me that we all (collectively) can find out enough about the effects of drifting smoke and flying debris on targeting that we may determine the scale of effect on targeting these should have on the simulation. So, given that there's no good basis for stuyding the problem (that I am aware of) why bother?

On the other hand, if you've got some good cause and effect type data that applies to this phenomenon, you should try to make your best case if you think it is worth pursuing. (And if your argument is based on empirical data you should be very skeptical of people who want to dismiss your opinion on the basis of some trivial non-squitur.)

mdiehl-
1. Why not offer your expertise to Matrix/2by3, since you're obviously skilled enough to be on the design team. I've loved all your other titles - each an instant classic.

2. Is non-sequitur a phrase you heard someone smart say and now you think it makes you look smart as well? Or do you have one of those "Phrase of the Day" calendars. Those are nice...

Wow, so much flaming over such a simple proposition! I dunno what to say about the odds of an "outlier" PH attack, but it is clear to me that mdiehl has been bashed by quite a cast of charactors for, essentially, just making common-sense suggestions.

So, for those of you who think they know everyone's programming skills and know what it will take matrix 15 years to do, I would say "lay off." If this isn't doable, it won't be done. If it is doable and worth doing, it will be. In the meantime, stop the personal attacks and the nonsequiturs (yes, that is a regular word and usable where appropriate without being a violation of the dictum to eschew obfuscation).

I enjoy reading flamewars as much as anybody, but I found it really easy to zip past a lot of these posts.

And mdiehl, I must admit I found your arguments persuasive, if perhaps based on inadequate information for your assessment of the outcome's tendency.

Man!, This is getting as bad as the BattleFront forums[:(] Beware[:-]children at war!

Proposition: a thing worth doing is worth doing well.

Corollary #1: a thing not worth doing is not worth doing well.

Corollary #2: a thing worth doing is worth doing badly.

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

ORIGINAL: Luskan
What's the point?? [:-]

After reading your post, that was my question.

You can look at his banana and still ask that? [:D]

Let's leave the banana out of this. [:-]

Seems to me if your going to be so picky as to where the Battleships are placed at Pearl in relation to torpedo damage the same logic would apply to all ports throughout the entire game. That would be a lot of extra work.

I see nothing wrong with how its handled now as several people have pointed out already. Dont waste the coders time.

There is some validity to your arguement (one of the reasons I'm willing to live with
the situation as it is now). It comes up because it is THE starting point for the war,
and the last time anyone can say for certain exactly what was where..., and because
the game generally doesn't allow torpedo attacks on ships in port (or has that been
changed..., it's hard to keep up).

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


the game generally doesn't allow torpedo attacks on ships in port (or has that been
changed..., it's hard to keep up).

If you are refering to "disbanded" ships in port. I believe that is correct, but as far as I know air torpedo attacks on docked ships are still allowed. I am still seeing those Betty & Nells useing their torpedos in Singapore and Manila Naval bases.