Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: m10bob

ORIGINAL: m10bob

7.7896 RHSCVO issues: 1.I can no longer purchase units to change their headquarters, because when I try, none of the other HQ show up in a list at all.
2.Vickers Vildebeest only has machine guns,(no torp nor bombs, but in the editor, it shows the torp?) I wonder if the radar showing on the editor screen is messing this up?
3.The Swordfish is showing bombs as the default weapon in game, yet it shows the torp in the editor!)Again, can RADAR be the culprit??

Attention Sid!!!!!!I saw your response to the two aircraft foibles, but the #1 problem ref the headquarters transfer screen is truly the "game-breaker". (Please forgive that I have not figured out how to copy-paste within the Firefox environment yet...)[:)]

I understand your frustration.

But I cannot fix what is not broke.

I am able to do this -- so the problems must be either procedural (you don't have enough PP is the obvious one) OR
you don't have good file copies.

It works at source - in CVO - for both sides - UNLESS a player lacks political points.

Now political points originate in the SCEN file - and so if there is a file issue - that is the one to look at.

The correct file has a note in the comment field

RHSCVO 7.78 Dec 1941 Start

Japan starts with 500 pp and gets 100 more per day

Allies start with 400 pp and get 100 more per day

Once you use these up - you must wait until a later turn - accumulating 100 per day - until you have enough to make the buy.

If this does not make sense we need to start over again with a clean installation. There is NOT a problem at source.
That is good news - it means you don't have to wait to fix it. I don't have to do anyting to fix it. All we need to do is figure out
what your problem is in your installation.

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie

"If you "switched back to CHS" - one wonders why you are on the RHS threads? CHS seems to have adopted an inconsistent approach re aircraft data - but JF Dunnigan says in the end it is the way to go: he shamelessly puts down us formula guys in favor of "seat of the pants" values for everything. One wonders how one can even have an opinon about obscure planes that way?"

The difference is that you can actually play CHS for more than a week without having to restart. Surely if your mod cannot gain the following it deserves it defeats the entire purpose of all the hard work you and others put in? How many recent changes (merchant ship costs springs to mind) were actually necessary? All we want is a stable platform that makes sense so that we can enjoy this wonderful mod. The more persistent gripes you hear ARE worth listening to and making adjustments because if people are annoyed by results they can attribute to something that is not generally accepted it puts other potential fans off the mod. We are all here because we WANT to play. Why not just fix things so we can happily play and stop tinkering? At the moment I am leaning towards Nemo's mod because I get the RHS flavour, but he has not chased himself down some of the blind alleys you seem to have done. It is such a shame because I love RHS and really want to play EOS, BUT there are too many things that get in the way.

I do not do changes that are not necessary. Minor changes are folded in with more important ones.

The root of the problem is that RHS attempted a great deal - and did so without a proper set of definitions of how things work or shold work. Not because we wanted to do it that way, but because no proper technical manual exists, nor is anyone able to produce one - no matter how much we offered to pay for it. We began in an age when it was posted that WITP was NOT going to be supported any more - and we could not know when or to what extend that would change? So when there was a solution - sometimes there is not - we tried for it. That means there is a risk - a grave risk if all the risks are compounded - that something would need to be changed. It is the flip side of attempting so much - and at times I regret having tried to do this or that. I never intended to review every ship, every LCU, every air unit - but as time passed it became clear the data set was inconsistent and incomplete - and in the end we did that - often more than once. Not sure it was a good idea - but that is history now. What is clear is there is no point in continuing to develop - so ALL we are doing is addressing problems. At the moment I am not aware of any - unless the two engine fighter controversy is a problem. I am making a polished final version of Levels 5 and 6,
which will be laid to rest at last - and I am modifying 7 as I do turns - just to make it easier to play (if a player is going to do this every time, I make it pre set, not just eratta)- and make AI "smarter" in two scenarios that need it to be. But I am in no hurry to complete this - and am waiting for some significant issue. If none appears, we will also issue a final version of 7, pending long term game issues (which I am sure must exist but which we cannot know at this time).

You created a pretty significant issue when you made TKs and AOs fifteen times more expensive because you did not feel that players valued them enough. Although you now have it down to nine times it still does not mean that your intitial "fix" to a non existant problem was not an error in judgement. This is what I mean by unnecessary changes. This is the sort of thing that creates many more knock on effects when there was no reason to change it in the first place. I have no problem with errata being fixed. The position of a port or one unit having the wrong aircraft would not cause a restart. Bollocksing up ship production does. Was it worth it? No! Until this issue and others like it are fixed, how can you say that level 5 and 6 are finished? I almost wish I could have an earlier "not quite so finished" version to play with...

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: m10bob

ORIGINAL: m10bob

7.7896 RHSCVO issues: 1.I can no longer purchase units to change their headquarters, because when I try, none of the other HQ show up in a list at all.
2.Vickers Vildebeest only has machine guns,(no torp nor bombs, but in the editor, it shows the torp?) I wonder if the radar showing on the editor screen is messing this up?
3.The Swordfish is showing bombs as the default weapon in game, yet it shows the torp in the editor!)Again, can RADAR be the culprit??

Attention Sid!!!!!!I saw your response to the two aircraft foibles, but the #1 problem ref the headquarters transfer screen is truly the "game-breaker". (Please forgive that I have not figured out how to copy-paste within the Firefox environment yet...)[:)]

I understand your frustration.

But I cannot fix what is not broke.

I am able to do this -- so the problems must be either procedural (you don't have enough PP is the obvious one) OR
you don't have good file copies.

It works at source - in CVO - for both sides - UNLESS a player lacks political points.

Now political points originate in the SCEN file - and so if there is a file issue - that is the one to look at.

The correct file has a note in the comment field

RHSCVO 7.78 Dec 1941 Start

Japan starts with 500 pp and gets 100 more per day

Allies start with 400 pp and get 100 more per day

Once you use these up - you must wait until a later turn - accumulating 100 per day - until you have enough to make the buy.

If this does not make sense we need to start over again with a clean installation. There is NOT a problem at source.
That is good news - it means you don't have to wait to fix it. I don't have to do anyting to fix it. All we need to do is figure out
what your problem is in your installation.


[/quote

Sid, I'm keen on the whole "greyed-out" thing, I mean the entire headquarters options are totally blank, NO lists whatsoever..(No ABDA, Southeast Asia, China, Southwest Pacific, South Pacific,etc......nothing....nada....nichts..........)
I downloaded all from Mifunes' great site but I have reported my problem accurately.....

GBL - Bingo! Right on the money - I can actually play CHS without finding big problems.

If you "switched back to CHS" - one wonders why you are on the RHS threads?

For the benefit of others, Sid. I'm surprised that you don't consider that as a motive for people other than yourself.

Others who continue to want to play RHS asked about the earlier P-38 postings, so I helped out.

I have been thinking about this while I was at the pet shop buying food for my dogs. RHS in it's current state of continuous flux is like a beautful girl in a girlie magazine. She is very nice to look at and offers five minutes of fun, BUT the slightly plainer girl next door (CHS) actually lets you feel her up every day of the year. I am ambitious. I want the girl in the girlie magazine to move in next door, but sooner or later reality bites and most people will choose the girl next door they already have...

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: m10bob

ORIGINAL: m10bob

7.7896 RHSCVO issues: 1.I can no longer purchase units to change their headquarters, because when I try, none of the other HQ show up in a list at all.
2.Vickers Vildebeest only has machine guns,(no torp nor bombs, but in the editor, it shows the torp?) I wonder if the radar showing on the editor screen is messing this up?
3.The Swordfish is showing bombs as the default weapon in game, yet it shows the torp in the editor!)Again, can RADAR be the culprit??

Attention Sid!!!!!!I saw your response to the two aircraft foibles, but the #1 problem ref the headquarters transfer screen is truly the "game-breaker". (Please forgive that I have not figured out how to copy-paste within the Firefox environment yet...)[:)]

I understand your frustration.

But I cannot fix what is not broke.

I am able to do this -- so the problems must be either procedural (you don't have enough PP is the obvious one) OR
you don't have good file copies.

It works at source - in CVO - for both sides - UNLESS a player lacks political points.

Now political points originate in the SCEN file - and so if there is a file issue - that is the one to look at.

The correct file has a note in the comment field

RHSCVO 7.78 Dec 1941 Start

Japan starts with 500 pp and gets 100 more per day

Allies start with 400 pp and get 100 more per day

Once you use these up - you must wait until a later turn - accumulating 100 per day - until you have enough to make the buy.

If this does not make sense we need to start over again with a clean installation. There is NOT a problem at source.
That is good news - it means you don't have to wait to fix it. I don't have to do anyting to fix it. All we need to do is figure out
what your problem is in your installation.

Sid!!..Once again, you were right..I re-applied the newest patch and the HQ/purchase screen works perfect..
I am now on to test other things..Looks good!

"If you "switched back to CHS" - one wonders why you are on the RHS threads?"

Whoa Sid, uncalled for. Very disappointing to see you resort to this type of comment regardless of your frustration. Although I don't see anything wrong in joining the threads of others, you have to be one of the all time offenders of the purported crime. Hmm, "Pot calling the kettle black" , "People in glass houses , etc, etc.


TO THE FORUM GODS, THIS IS NOT A PERSONAL ATTACK. PLEASE DON'T BAND ME.

ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie

I have been thinking about this while I was at the pet shop buying food for my dogs. RHS in it's current state of continuous flux is like a beautful girl in a girlie magazine. She is very nice to look at and offers five minutes of fun, BUT the slightly plainer girl next door (CHS) actually lets you feel her up every day of the year. I am ambitious. I want the girl in the girlie magazine to move in next door, but sooner or later reality bites and most people will choose the girl next door they already have...

What is up with you and your neighbors? [:D]

ORIGINAL: 1EyedJacks

ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie

I have been thinking about this while I was at the pet shop buying food for my dogs. RHS in it's current state of continuous flux is like a beautful girl in a girlie magazine. She is very nice to look at and offers five minutes of fun, BUT the slightly plainer girl next door (CHS) actually lets you feel her up every day of the year. I am ambitious. I want the girl in the girlie magazine to move in next door, but sooner or later reality bites and most people will choose the girl next door they already have...

What is up with you and your neighbors? [:D]

I was trying to find an analogy that you'd understand...[:'(]

ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie

ORIGINAL: 1EyedJacks

ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie

I have been thinking about this while I was at the pet shop buying food for my dogs. RHS in it's current state of continuous flux is like a beautful girl in a girlie magazine. She is very nice to look at and offers five minutes of fun, BUT the slightly plainer girl next door (CHS) actually lets you feel her up every day of the year. I am ambitious. I want the girl in the girlie magazine to move in next door, but sooner or later reality bites and most people will choose the girl next door they already have...

What is up with you and your neighbors? [:D]

I was trying to find an analogy that you'd understand...[:'(]

Well thank you! You know how slow I am... [:D][:D]

Wow, guys really are amazing. From strategic/operational level wargame and mod discussion to playboy model in ONE analogy. LOL!!!!

ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie

.

You created a pretty significant issue when you made TKs and AOs fifteen times more expensive because you did not feel that players valued them enough. Although you now have it down to nine times it still does not mean that your intitial "fix" to a non existant problem was not an error in judgement. This is what I mean by unnecessary changes. This is the sort of thing that creates many more knock on effects when there was no reason to change it in the first place. I have no problem with errata being being fixed. The position of a port or one unit having the wrong aircraft would not cause a restart. Bollocksing up ship production does. Was it worth it? No! Until this issue and others like it are fixed, how can you say that level 5 and 6 are finished? I almost wish I could have an earlier "not quite so finished" version to play with...

It is a matter of opinion.

I did not really modify tankers - and auxiliaries - and hulls based on tankers (e.g. CVEs) - because "players don't value them enough."
I modified them because they need to be more durable in good simulation. Tankers are notoriously hard to sink - even with torpedoes.
NOT being reflected in the existing game violated my sense of "right and wrong" simulation wise. I consider it a bonus that players get more victory points associated with tankers.

The problem you think is associated with this is a much larger problem. I added literally thousands of landing craft and transport and other minor vessels - and the game system finds this difficult to cope with (for Japan only). Again - their being absent wholly distorts the nature of things - and we only have a significant fraction of them (others are abstractly represented by ferries, by amphibous ships with organic craft, etc) Even getting rid of tankers as a whole did not change this problem. So your analysis is based on an assumption because tankers are so visible with high durability/vp counts - but it is only a part of the matter. In the end most of these craft are not "built" in the game - they are built off the map or already exist - and we only account for where they appear when: giving you the points is a resonable workaround.

Far more difficult is the problem that the game engine consumes the wrong ratio of oil and resources - or that 2/3 of all cargo by weight (for Japaan anyway) is coal - a fuel - not a resource in the sense you make stuff out of it. But the workaround - representing part of the economy and taking part of the AKs away - is also reasonable. It is the best we can do in the context of not changing code - and if Matrix ever opens this up - we may change the code as well.

The question is - what is being debated here? What is the point? Choices must be made. Leaving tankers at the same value as AKs was not a choice I ever would consider. It is plain wrong - and I am somewhat surprised it was not done right to begin with.

[quote]ORIGINAL: m10bob


Withdrawn because bob figured out the problem.

ORIGINAL: witpqs

If you "switched back to CHS" - one wonders why you are on the RHS threads?

For the benefit of others, Sid. I'm surprised that you don't consider that as a motive for people other than yourself.

Others who continue to want to play RHS asked about the earlier P-38 postings, so I helped out.

An honorable motive - and clearly sincerely offered - so the question is answered - and possibly thanks are due.
I regret that you don't understand what was wrong with the stock/CHS system of not penalizing two engine fighters
maneuverability - as is done for all other two engine planes. But that is the thing that is "wrong" with P-38 -
and I don't see any solution to "fix" it that omits the divisior for two engine planes? I do think our reclassification
as "fighter" may matter in game terms - and I am willing to consider a change for the unusual maneuverability for this
class of aircraft - but at the margins - not in violation of the principles of physics - which must apply IMHO. I now believe
this problem is why Matrix invented the wierd "fighter bomber" category.

ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie

I have been thinking about this while I was at the pet shop buying food for my dogs. RHS in it's current state of continuous flux is like a beautful girl in a girlie magazine. She is very nice to look at and offers five minutes of fun, BUT the slightly plainer girl next door (CHS) actually lets you feel her up every day of the year. I am ambitious. I want the girl in the girlie magazine to move in next door, but sooner or later reality bites and most people will choose the girl next door they already have...

Ironically offered when we seem to finally have a stable platform.

Note that it would not have taken so long if I had not made the mistake of doing things the way others want and just did what I want:
we offer alternate scenarios for people who believe in Active Russians, limited political points, name it. And we continue to support older versions because SOME people ARE playing them - some have played Level 5 for a year (and just surfaced - and that is how we got an installer written). We could have just said "here it is, take it or leave it" and not permitted an open development platform. The choice to do that has a price - and no one paid more than I for that choice (in hours).

No collection of data this large is ever eratta free. Normal collections of data this large are also usually more consistent - we had a "too many cooks" problem big time. To the extent stock and CHS and most other mods are stable- they are stable on foundations with significant need of reform. I regret only that we cannot fix ALL the problems (e.g. the way land combat works) - not that we have fixed the ones we did.

I promise to continue to listen to reports of eratta, of possible problems (even if bugus they are real to the reporter and it is helpful to know the problem is not at source), and to consider changes of interest to some (e.g. P-38 - which I regard as quite acceptable in its previous form - and likely very acceptable now). But a game that starts now need not restart if we address such matters - many times RHS updates are just for future games - not because past ones need to change. And I can fix a big problem in an ongoing game if need be - if it is wroth the effort.

If this is not acceptable I will simply withdraw from the field. I don't have to do this. I only wanted to "fix some problems with ships" and the map when I started - and I am dismayed there were so many issues. But I did not invent most of them. RHS was an experimental platform to address problems - and there is always some risk when one tries to do things in an undocumented complex system.

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

"If you "switched back to CHS" - one wonders why you are on the RHS threads?"

Whoa Sid, uncalled for. Very disappointing to see you resort to this type of comment regardless of your frustration. Although I don't see anything wrong in joining the threads of others, you have to be one of the all time offenders of the purported crime. Hmm, "Pot calling the kettle black" , "People in glass houses , etc, etc.


TO THE FORUM GODS, THIS IS NOT A PERSONAL ATTACK. PLEASE DON'T BAND ME.

Well - we have come to terms with ths - did you miss it? WIPQS passion to change the P-38 seemed out of place if he was not actually going to use it - but he said he was trying to help others - a noble cause - and I believe him.

I have probably spent more time on the P-38 than any other matter - far more than is justified - redoing the engire aircraft data set three times - and no one was a greater source of asking for that work than WITPQS. I am frustrated he is not happy - and I now believe that he is never going to accept the premise that a formula application of reference data is a sound approach (since it will not ever put a twin engine aircraft at 95 per cent of a single engine one in terms of maneuverability). Nor do I think he understands the technical need to force all maneuverabilty matters into a small fraction of the WITP variable - because the combat routine requires it be dominated by speed - until such time as it is re-written. Explaining it only produces "I am not confused, and it still needs to be 95 per cent" when that is not objectively correct.
I reacted to my frustration with this intransigence - and in spite of being compared with Job for patience - it appears the comparison is not entirely apt. In the end we are going to have to agree to disagree: I won't throw out the reform which hurts the P-38 (Matrix does not use its otherwise consistent maneiverabilty divisor for two engine planes for the fighter case). We can consider changing the engine divisor (I suggested square root of engines) - but a divide by 1.4 is still not going to get him 95 per cent - and it may really distort the four engine case.
We can consider adding a bonus - I say for powered flaps - but we need to define why so it applies to ALL similar cases - and it needs to be modest in impact (because all issues other than speed combined are a minority of this field, and just one of those must be a tiny minority). In the end - I am as sure that giving a rating nearly double what it should be is "wrong" and WITPQS is just as sure it is "wrong" not to do so. I almost regret several man months on this matter - except I think the process DID improve our approach - and it is hard to regret getting it right (even if it isn't admitted we got it right, or nearly so).

If WITP were perfect, we would have never seen the first patch.
If Matrix games were not the great-minded commercial enterprise it tries to be, they would not have listened to any of us, and none of the patches might have become available.
If none of us players were freaks for historical-correctness, or computer nerds with a bent for assisting others, not a single mod might have been developed.

In our selfish desires to just "play the game" AND have it in "our particular flavor", it it hard to remember the mods of choice were free, nobody forced us to even look at, nor download any of them, and yet, some of them became the forum "whipping boy" of choice.

I agree with Sid, I believe the game is playable in its current state, and I KNOW IT HAS BEEN PLAYABLE AS OF MAYBE FIVE VERSIONS BACK.

Thank you to the major players for RHS, Sid...Cobra....Mifune.........etc....[&o]

Joe Wilkerson likes to say

"we can do anything, but we cannot do everything"

and he said it to me more than once because I have a tendency to try to do too close to everything.

At some point we have to stop trying to do a lot more. That point has now been reached. We are going to focus on
documentation and support matters - and on demonstrating why pwhex changes should be part of the WITP/AE/WITP 2
system. [The first part of that was to issue several pwhex files. The second part was to issue an installer/pwhex switcher.]
We think seasons are an important dimension, as is construction and damage - and we have the latter in basic form -
and only art is preventing us from doing the former.

By demonstrating interest in Russians, midget subs, kaiten, blimps (the list goes on for a long time) we were able to stimulate
official work in such directions. I think it is useful to continue doing this sort of thing. I also think that fixing problems fast
is a good idea - rather than forcing everyone to wait a long time. But even so, it is fair to say that we need to focus on fewer
things - if only so I can play more !

ORIGINAL: m10bob

If WITP were perfect, we would have never seen the first patch.
If Matrix games were not the great-minded commercial enterprise it tries to be, they would not have listened to any of us, and none of the patches might have become available.
If none of us players were freaks for historical-correctness, or computer nerds with a bent for assisting others, not a single mod might have been developed.

In our selfish desires to just "play the game" AND have it in "our particular flavor", it it hard to remember the mods of choice were free, nobody forced us to even look at, nor download any of them, and yet, some of them became the forum "whipping boy" of choice.

I agree with Sid, I believe the game is playable in its current state, and I KNOW IT HAS BEEN PLAYABLE AS OF MAYBE FIVE VERSIONS BACK.

Thank you to the major players for RHS, Sid...Cobra....Mifune.........etc....[&o]

I agree Cid and the team are brilliant. I posted in defence of CHS when Cid was disparaging about it. The fact I have suffered three forced level 7 restarts in five weeks would indicate that RHS has not been a stable platform, but it looks like it is now thanks to yet another superhuman effort from Cid. [:)]