Aircraft rockets

[Dili]

I am surprised that some are still surprised by JWE.

[Nemo121]

che2000,

I respect your point of view and your parallel with Harpoon is well taken. Personally I agree with you that egregious personal assault shouldn't be tolerated but where I might differ ( although I hope not ) is that I don't consider vehemently disagreeing with the developers about in-game decisions or combat modelling to be in any way abusive.

I've seen forums where gamers were really rude and unrealistic about what they wanted modelled etc and if what they wanted didn't get in they would moan whilst ignoring the fact they hadn't done enough research to justify its inclusion. On the other hand I've also been on the forums of several well-known companies where the developers/publishers began characterising most posts which disagreed with them as "abusive" and then banning the poster. JWE doesn't like what I say... Fine. He doesn't like that I characterise his and Terminus' responses as being extremely poor from a customer relations point of view. Fine. However to characterise either of those sentiments as "abusive" means that you are characterising the holding of a viewpoint and its expression as being abusive. That's wrong.

Gamers can destroy a forum but so can developers/publishers. When a developer creates a situation where players don't bother posting requests for information or findings of error because they anticipate a personally negative backlash then, really, I think the development team needs to look at how it interacts with its customers... If you look at this and other recent threads you can see several people who don't go looking for fights posting that they didn't post x or y question or comment because they felt it wouldn't be appropriately dealt with. That's a very bad sign for the developers and AE as those sorts of opinions don't grow out of nowhere.

So, certainly, the developers should have their work recognised - and I and others do. I have defended it in the artillery thread and other threads when I felt the developers got something right... and no developer reported me for being abusive when I defended their design decisions... but when I point out poor customer relations conduct I find myself insulted and reported... Developers can't expect ( and shouldn't want ) a bunch of lapdogs who simply post threads about how good things are and how we'll wait while they fix whatever they want to fix. It is GOOD for the developers and the game itself to have people who argue for action on things, find new bugs and illuminate them. Its also good to have people who call their behaviour to count when they behave poorly ( in much the same way that I have, previously, told forum members that their behaviour towards devs was unreasonable when they behaved inappropriately). And to be clear, I'm no saint myself, just yesterday I got pulled up on over-use of the word idiocy in my AAR to describe a design decision. I strongly disagree with the decision but let my frustration, at the time, lead me to characterise it as "idiocy", which it isn't. One of the air devs pulled me up on that and I apologised and will try not to post when as frustrated with the system in future ( although I will change these setting in my mod when I make it as I still think their design decision was wrong ).

Developers should expect to be treated fairly and that means when they don't reach the right standards they should be pulled up on it just as thye should be congratulated when they exceed expectations.


Che2000,
What has changed with Terminus is that now he gives those answers as a part of the development team to which customers paid their money in relation to a product which he is publicly representing.

If I went into a car dealership and reported a problem with my car and was met by a guy I kinda knew from a few years ago who was a right a*s way back when but who now worked there I would expect a far better response than "WHy don't YOU find out what's wrong and come back and tell me Mister." His personality should have little to do with his action while representing his company/development team. If he doesn't want to be helpful he doesn't have to post but if he posts as a member of the development team which developed a commercial product then we have a right to hold that reply to normal commercial standards....

This being AE doesn't grant it an exemption from social and cultural norms as regards business transactions and the behaviour inherent in and following on from same. I have no problem with him not answering if he doesn't know but if someone in a shop answered me like that I'd ask for the manager and initiate a complaint. Just because this is the net doesn't mean we have to give that sort of behaviour a by.


On a more pragmatic note.... The AE forum is being mentioned on the net as a place where customer relations have gone sour and as an example of how NOT to deal with the customer. It isn't quite in Talonsoft/Take 2 territory yet but in the long run that sort of reputation doesn't help Matrix or the devs at all. Its simple really, if they don't have anything nice to say why post a nasty, uninformative reply to a customer? It doesn't help the customer, it doesn't help them and it is short-sighted and self-destructive in the long run.

[Nemo121]

As to the meat of the question... again from WiTP...

Rockets and PGMs work. Treat PGMs as bombs ( just look at how the OHka is treated and you should be fine ) but realise that the experience of the launching bomber is taken to be the experience of the kami/Okha.

Rockets.... Just model them as forward firing guns and you should be fine. I have listed most of the common ones in Empires Ablaze. In the absence of any substantive replies from the developers I would suggest using that as a starting point.

[2ndACR]

And that would be my problem.......never saw they already had one setup.......thank you Juan........how hard was that T or JWE....

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR
And that would be my problem.......never saw they already had one setup.......thank you Juan........how hard was that T or JWE....

Because that wasn't on the plate for dinner. We rely on people doing their own checking on peripheral things like this and bringing it to our attention if it's broke. Just like Terminus said.

[2ndACR]

Yes, but alot of people ask if someone has tried such and such, so they dont waste time trying. I spent 3 hours on that but messed up because I did not check closer and see a ready made slot for it. Of course I never tried to mod before so easy to miss something.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR
Yes, but alot of people ask if someone has tried such and such, so they dont waste time trying. I spent 3 hours on that but messed up because I did not check closer and see a ready made slot for it. Of course I never tried to mod before so easy to miss something.

But that is exactly what we are looking for. Not this "does it work" crap, but "I tried it and it's not happening". If your question is the second one, you will find lots of people willing and able to help you.

[JeffroK]

I might be missing something, but if they work so well, why arent they listed as a loadout out for the likely users????

As for the "poor unpaid volunteer" line, is that real or FOW?? Whats this Henderson Field thingy that appears from time to time

As Matrix made most of the bucks out of this, its sasd to see they do not allocate a Customer service type to collect queries
and distribute the to the relevant team for answer.

Thats how a real business would operate.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: JeffK
I might be missing something, but if they work so well, why arent they listed as a loadout out for the likely users????

You are missing a lot. No one ever said they worked at all. The question was "do they work", and Terminus' answer was go and find out.

As for the "poor unpaid volunteer" line, is that real or FOW?? Whats this Henderson Field thingy that appears from time to time

We work for Henderson Field Designs. We do not work for Matrix or anyone else. Every one of us undertook this project without expectation of compensation of any kind. Period.

As Matrix made most of the bucks out of this, its sasd to see they do not allocate a Customer service type to collect queries
and distribute the to the relevant team for answer.

They do, and they do. But just because people do not wish to either understand or believe the answers, does not mean they are not provided in excruciating detail.

Thats how a real business would operate.

And that's how a real business does operate. It provides practical solutions for its nominal customer base.

[RyanCrierie]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Rockets and PGMs work. Treat PGMs as bombs ( just look at how the OHka is treated and you should be fine ) but realise that the experience of the launching bomber is taken to be the experience of the kami/Okha

They only work for one side; Japanese.

See, what happens is no matter how many of a 02 Plane Guided Missile device you have in your device pool; your squadrons will not "see" it, and thus be capable of using it -- unless you are the japanese player.

For the allied side, they remain perpetually greyed out text on plane/squadron data screens and thus unlaunchable; even if you've set the device pool for them to 5,000.

[mjk428]

ORIGINAL: JWE


Frankly, it's loud mouthed jerks like you that tend to annoy. Please rest assured that you are now green buttoned, and anything further your wish to sasy will be affirmatively ignored.

I am requesting Matrix to review your posts, and those of certain others like you, with a view towards removing your juvenile bile from these forums.

I'm requesting that Matrix discontinue their relationship with loud-mouthed ***hats like you & Terminus should they ever want to see another one of my dollars in their coffers.

I'm betting neither of us get our requests accepted.

[Sardaukar]

Thanks for answers...the helpful answers that is. [:'(]
 
I thought my question was quite straightforward:
 
a) do the air-to-ground rockets work?
b) has anybody tried to mod them?
 
IMHO, "do it yourself" did not really answer either. I asked to avoid wasting time with them, if rockets did not work. I also asked this in appropriate Mod-subforum.
 
Is there some sort of "policy", that one cannot ask if others have tried something, but have to try everything themselves?

[el cid again]

RHS - and mods based on it like Empires Ablaze - have rockets that work. This is pretty easy to do with confidence if you simply use gun devices renamed as rockets. The trick is to figure out how to do the data? The big theoretical issue which caused lots of discussion for years on WITP was the matter of "reloading in the air." The solution was to limit the rate of fire of the gun devices - we tried a value of 1 and it worked remarkably well. One can also combine the rockets into pairs (for large ones) or banks (for small ones). Both theory and testing can be used to determine effect and accuracy values - but if reasonable ones are chosen - rockets turn out to work remarkably close to IRL. That is, they are more effective vs targets which are large and not very maneuverable - something of a surprise. Anyway - that solution could be adopted by anyone who wants to workaround the matter that the rocket devices per se may not work. Note that this form of pseudo rocket not only occasionally works vs aircraft, it works vs small surface targets very well (and isn't worth much vs large armored ships either) - just as it should be.

[David Heath]

Hi Everyone

Please calm down I understand things sometime get heated but everyone please set back.

David

[vaned74]

Well - this was a 5 minute effort - I loaded Da Babes scenario, copied a 4.5in rocket device from the allies and made it japanese, installed on Ki-27 - saved, started Dec 7th and set a bunch of nates to ground attack. See the picture.

As far as rocket ammo - it's a strafing attack, as best I can tell the system only allows one pass so the number of mountings you install on the plane is the number of rockets you shoot - unless you want to make something like a "rocket cluster" and model that as one device - that may be the way the device is depicted now in the editor - I have no idea.

[vaned74]

and here they are on naval attack...

[vaned74]

And finally note that if an air unit is armed with both rockets and bombs, it will apparently use both.  The zeros above were armed with 2 x 60 kg bombs (which hit) as well as rockets.  The strike altitude was 8,000 feet.  I do not know if they were modelled as flying at 8,000 feet in the actual rocket attack or just in the bomb attack.  The only way I would know to test that would be to arm the targets with AA that had a max altitude of something like 6,000 feet (give them a lot of AA to ensure a result) and then order the strike at say 15,000 feet and see what happens.

[Sardaukar]

Thanks, I am thinking of adding some late war rocket-armed anti-shipping planes. Beaufighter is obviously one candidate. [8D]

[JeffroK]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

RHS - and mods based on it like Empires Ablaze - have rockets that work. This is pretty easy to do with confidence if you simply use gun devices renamed as rockets. The trick is to figure out how to do the data? The big theoretical issue which caused lots of discussion for years on WITP was the matter of "reloading in the air." The solution was to limit the rate of fire of the gun devices - we tried a value of 1 and it worked remarkably well. One can also combine the rockets into pairs (for large ones) or banks (for small ones). Both theory and testing can be used to determine effect and accuracy values - but if reasonable ones are chosen - rockets turn out to work remarkably close to IRL. That is, they are more effective vs targets which are large and not very maneuverable - something of a surprise. Anyway - that solution could be adopted by anyone who wants to workaround the matter that the rocket devices per se may not work. Note that this form of pseudo rocket not only occasionally works vs aircraft, it works vs small surface targets very well (and isn't worth much vs large armored ships either) - just as it should be.

Gday Sid,

Have you given this monster a try yet??

[el cid again]

At the risk of agreeing the both Terminus and JWE - see below - I too think Terminus has a point. Talking with the lead programmer (via email), he explained that even being able to read source is not the same as knowing how things work. He said that what I do - as an experienced test technician - "builds a very good picture of how things actually work" - and avoids pitfalls which come from thinking what you just read means something. He said "after two years, I thought I knew how (something) worked, but I just found a branch yesterday, and now I am sure of nothing" (approximate from memory). The idea that a great way to know is to try it - and try it in canned tests set up to reveal limits - is a very fine suggestion. Terminus was probably being sincere and helpful.
There is a history on the WITP forum boards of alleging the rocket devices do not work. One of the more experienced modders wrote me that he thought they didn't work vs air targets - and I bet he is right about that. Probably they were included as bombardment weapons - and maybe also as anti- ship weapons. But the view persisted that they didn't work even in those roles - and I was not able to devise a test that shows they worked either - and a programmer also said the same thing. Which is why I tried to create a workaround. Knowing it was a compromise, I was not very optimistic, but it seems to work better than my wildest dreams.

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: JeffK
Now I know why it took so long to get AE out, with that sort of attitude to their CUSTOMERS
I'm about to do my redo of Scen1 and was adding rockets in that.
BUT
AndyMacs Mariana scenario is in the right time frame so I might try that.

Terminus has a point Jeff. There is no way anybody can know everything about what has been done. One knows this - one knows that - one knows something else. What we must rely on is players smiling and dialing and figuiring things out for themselves. That's how we learn about what works and what may not.

Even if you try AndyMacs Mariana scenario, there's nothing there that says rockets work or don't. If they work for Andy, they work for all; if they don't work for all, they won't work for Andy.

I do believe they work, but depend on feedback from players as to whether this is true or not. Terminus is right on point with this one.