Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Alfred

It is quite revealing that over the last 6 or so months posters to this sub forum have not woken up to the fact that michaelm and the other devs rarely respond.  To me the explanation is quite simple; (a) too many threads opened on matters which are WAD and are not a bug, and/or (b) have already been explained by the devs on  many occasions over the years.  Only occasionally does michaelm appear and then he invariably asks for a save and practically always comes back with the answer that it is not a bug.

This current thread is no different.  There is no bug here.  It is WAD.  How radar operates has been explained on many occasions by the devs over the years.  All of this is absolutely obvious from any search of the forum.

...


In summary, everything is WAD and as explained on numerous occasions.

Alfred

Alfred,

As usual, superlative.

Thank you.

I wish I had your eloquence ...

[&o][&o][&o]

Thanks, Alfred, for the great summary. I, along with many others I'm sure, appreciate your explanations. And you got me: I should have done some research.

Like I said in the beginning, this wasn't a complaint. However, it is always interesting to learn how things work in the game.

Lowpe: Sure, that was a milk run bombardment TF keeping Lunga down as I advanced up the Solomons. If I had expected a normal surface engagement, I'd have added some DDs and split it into two TFs.

I ran the turn once with the Pennsylvania in port, and everything else the same, and one of the other battlewagons took 4 gun hits but no torps [Edit: I took this to mean one-for-one coverage by escorts probably helped]. The detection aspect went down the same way. Also, I noted that the class of TB in question is 3000 tons in this Andy Mac scenario.

Cheers,
CC

ORIGINAL: Jace11

Bearing in mind the patch notes, why would anyone be surprised that a TB could adequately engage its weapon systems at that range whereas the American BBs, whose main weapon systems are not designed to engage at such close range, are less effective.

Confused by this. While in reality this may be case, I wasn't aware there was any modelling of minimum ranges. The editor only contains one set of range values. Is there an algorhythm at work here where larger calibre weapons are rendered less effective as range reduces? Or is this one more erroneous assumption?

Read my post in this thread

tm.asp?m=3527060&mpage=1&key=ballistics&#3527193

and don't forget to read the hyperlinked threads (all 3).

Exact algorithms are not disclosed by the devs. The forum is littered with complaints from players that their battlewagons rarely fire their main guns but instead mainly used small calibre weapons. When you note the ranges at which those combats often occurred I think you can draw your own conclusions as to what might be in the algorithms.

I have posted in another more recent thread which is also germane but as it dealt specifically with naval bombardment ranges, albeit it covers the same ground, I have not provided the link.

Alfred

ORIGINAL: Bill Durrant

5. The search facility is far from perfect

Name the human endeavour which is perfect.

This excuse is trotted out time and time again. It just doesn't stand up to even the most basic scrutiny. Anyone who relies on it to excuse themselves must answer this very simple question.

If the Matrix forum search function is so poor, how is it that I regularly use it and find the answer? Same search tool yet quite different outcomes achieved by different individuals. Always reminds me of the old saying that it is a poor tradesman who blames his tools for a poor work outcome.

Alfred

Viagra can fix that - just saying...

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: Bill Durrant

5. The search facility is far from perfect

Name the human endeavour which is perfect.

This excuse is trotted out time and time again. It just doesn't stand up to even the most basic scrutiny. Anyone who relies on it to excuse themselves must answer this very simple question.

If the Matrix forum search function is so poor, how is it that I regularly use it and find the answer? Same search tool yet quite different outcomes achieved by different individuals. Always reminds me of the old saying that it is a poor tradesman who blames his tools for a poor work outcome.

Alfred

Only some one as highly intelligent as socially handicapped as you could possibly misinterpret his post to the degree you have.

Try looking at the fact that he was trying to cool the ardor of some of those presenting arguments by reminding us all that it is a game and is by nature of having been a human endeavor....imperfect.

All you succeeded in doing was restating what he had already said.

Alfred you are brilliant, but you have a long, long way to go to learn how to interact with people without coming across as condescending and insulting.

The only reason I speak out is because I have already walked that path.

ORIGINAL: Commander Cody
Lowpe: Sure, that was a milk run bombardment TF keeping Lunga down as I advanced up the Solomons. If I had expected a normal surface engagement, I'd have added some DDs and split it into two TFs.

I ran the turn once with the Pennsylvania in port, and everything else the same, and one of the other battlewagons took 4 gun hits but no torps [Edit: I took this to mean one-for-one coverage by escorts probably helped]. The detection aspect went down the same way. Also, I noted that the class of TB in question is 3000 tons in this Andy Mac scenario.

Cheers,
CC

Milk run? In an AndyMac Nasty game? No such thing.[:D]

I think a few people could curb their behavior on this thread.

A possibly helpful hint:

You can search this forum with Google. Put site:www.matrixgames.com in the search terms and put in other terms to narrow your search. I have had some success with the Matrix forum search, but Google will usually find it if the on site tool can't.

Bill

ORIGINAL: wdolson

I think a few people could curb their behavior on this thread.

A possibly helpful hint:

You can search this forum with Google. Put site:www.matrixgames.com in the search terms and put in other terms to narrow your search. I have had some success with the Matrix forum search, but Google will usually find it if the on site tool can't.

Bill

+1

Alas, I am still NOT as adept as Alfred, but I do find Google to be better than the site search engine.

Thanks Alfred for bringing those threads, great read. [:)]