What the Heck has happened to this forum???

[harlekwin]

Yeah it'll die. Along with interest if the OOBs are now going to be based on WAGs instead of data. I also find it particularly amusing that instead of an open audit of the OOBs with full disclosure of changes being made and explained as they are being pondered as was the case in the past we are now told as if we are Lumpy's prolitariat "don't worry the next 5 year plan is great!" Well oddly the last time a big "surprise" was sprung we wound up with .30 cals disabling tracks at 6-800 yards away.

Now I may just be a dumb wannabe grognard compared to the greatness that is KG Erwin, and Melvin but when last I read British battlefield investigation data or the Official unit histories I can find in army units the magic MGs were not based at all in reality or the Germans would have never upgraded beyond the PZ I. I gave a very precise question that still has yet to have a satisfactory answer Bill and once upon a time I volunteered my time and got to put up with ridicule of my integrity because I was percieved to "only want to denude the Axis OOBs". The OOBs have been allowed to morph from an attempt to have consistent standards in what was being presented way back before 7.0 even into a bunch of petty fiefdoms with SWAGs being used to get it to "just feel right".

Hey all I want to know is is there any cross OOB standards of consistency in any of the data being presented? Asking why the German oob gets the product improved Soviet 76.2 in July of '41 while Ivan himself gets to wait until early '42 I guess is heresy these days? I may be flippant and I may have doubts about whether or not the majority of the alterations since 7.11 but to suddenly cast doubts on my integrity or just say I am an interloper and will tire and go away plays directly into the hands of what has made the OOBs a punchline amongst the SP community at large and this is a tragedy considering the fact that Matrix built by far the best version of SP "under the hood" regarding the game engine.

Wild Bill you are highly revered by me, and probably by the rest of us "heretics". I greatly respect your opinions and factual resources and the work and time you have given this community make you a legend. I walked away from SPWAW for a long time for several reasons but one of the main ones was the creeping devolution of the OOBs into documents that were being based on urban legends not hard data.

I will ask you what is accomplished by having a bunch of people making alterations to OOBs that had largely been canonical and given much TLC without any vetting of major changes with the community at large? You may or may not have been involved in this judgement call, but I assure you that previous "official" scrubs did NOT get to make wild alterations without either severe oversight and playtesting or public feedback on data. Given the volunteer nature of the scrub members I understand it is no fun standing up to scrutiny rather well-I have been there.

It seems to me, and I have seen little to disabuse me of the notion, that the OOB scrub has focused on things other than "making certain cross OOB eqpt. is the same when warranted", "going over Typos", and "double checking concrete data on popular issues like the Kittens". Why at this late date in the life cycle of SPWAW are things like arty RoF being played with if this is in fact the "final final" without non group play testing of the effects instead of finalizing things?

Now I have gathered that I am not welcome and by the silence on queries into what the universal standards being used to ensure that all OOBs are comparing apples to apples likely do not exist. I would trust YOU Wild Bill with the power of "it just feels right" but such trust is hard to give to the whiz kids that had track busting Mg-34/42s and M1919s....sorry. Those OOBs made us a laughing stock in the eyes of "that other SP team" and what could we long time matrix fans say?

Oops....

It just felt right.....

Well they were doing such great things they needed done in secret and sprung on an unsuspecting community.....

I for one am glad that this IS the "final final" and the community will be forced to move on to CL/CA because quite frankly since the old team has left to go work on the newer games the old game has suffered from the attention of "princes" and "gurus" with their own little agendas guarding their pet OOBs and "tweaking them" until you get OOBs comparing apples and oranges.

regards,
sven

[Tombstone]

Whoah Sven. Tell us how you really feel... heh. That's too bad that you put so much hard work into a thing only to end up alienated. That's a bummer, but it happens. I'm working on the Spider-Man 2 movie game for the consoles and I'm often very frustrated, and I'm mostly in charge! (Mostly is the operative word there.) The guys who are running the operation have to do what they think is right, and they don't always manage the feelings of the people involved in a way that is satisfactory to all the parties involved. If you think they're goind in the wrong direction then we need to see it as a bump in the road that can be corrected in the future.

Tomo

[harlekwin]

ORIGINAL: Tombstone

Whoah Sven. Tell us how you really feel... heh. That's too bad that you put so much hard work into a thing only to end up alienated. That's a bummer, but it happens. I'm working on the Spider-Man 2 movie game for the consoles and I'm often very frustrated, and I'm mostly in charge! (Mostly is the operative word there.) The guys who are running the operation have to do what they think is right, and they don't always manage the feelings of the people involved in a way that is satisfactory to all the parties involved. If you think they're goind in the wrong direction then we need to see it as a bump in the road that can be corrected in the future.

Tomo

I was voluntarily 'alienated' for a good bit of time. Life happens, but the fact is at the end of the day the stony silence routine and an OOB scrub not done in the open runs counter to the usual SOP.

I am glad to hear you are doing well.

regards,
sven


p.s. (in theory) 8.2 is it....

finito

That is why I voiced my concerns on the nature of the beast now rather than waiting for outcry to necessitate another final final....

[rich12545]

No sir. They're already talking about another update maybe around June or so. It's the never ending spwaw. In a few years it'll be ver 12.3 absolutely positively the last one. [8|]

[Wild Bill]

I posted a reply but for some reason it disappeared. I hope this one stays.

This is a forum. Everyone is entitled to state his point of view. Avoiding attacks against people is vital.

Let us not stoop to that. Finding fault with another person is not an issue here. Making sure the game is right is.

And the tone of the statement is important. Let's not be derogatory or sarcastic. Speak to the point, clearly. Make your point. See what happens.

Harlekwin, anything that needs to be fixed hopefully will be. Discussion on the OOBs has gone on for every version out. And it will continue to go on. Somewhere a decision has to be made. It won't please everyone.

I'm not an OOB guru. I know little to nothing of armor slopes, penetration values, rates of fire. I'm not an expert in these fields. I do know something about the game, how it works and how to use it to recreate historical battles. I know when it feels right and when it doesn't.

But I hope we can be gentlemen...all of us, no matter which side of the issue you take.

Sven, I appreciate your kind remarks. I have the same respect and I hope I am showing that in this reply.

I want no one to take this as pointing a finger. It isn't. I've had no individual in mind when I write this. These for me are general principles of behavior that make for sane, constructive discussions. That is what I really want here.

Wild Bill

[Tombstone]

Difficulties and opinions are par for the course when changes are forever... The good thing is that it invariably (at least over the long term) things get better. Trying out things that come with general discontent are just as valuable for furthering knowledge... Sure it comes with the general discontent, but it's really a small price to pay.

Tomo

[Major_Johnson]

Guess I can put in my 2 cents. I for one don't have problem with "heavy" machine guns knocking out a half track, or maybe even a damaged tank. Lucky shots can happen. Maybe a hit on a fuel can?? Just guessing. But I've had my complaint's about the German supermen and machines in some instances in past versions. I haven't play v8 enough to form an opinion.

But I feel that what SPWAW does is teach us the basics of warfare. You have to make do as best you can with what your given. That's what the great generals did. You have to learn how to stress the strengths of your men and equipment. And not to be cruel, but let's face it, not everyone is gonna be a Patton or Rommel or Alexander or Zukov.

I will admit that some earlier oobs made it nearly impossible to be the Soviets in the early stages of the war, but if you look at the history, the Allies in general didn't do so well early on!

Well that's just my 2 cents worth. I'll keep the change!!

[Belisarius]

ORIGINAL: Major_Johnson

Guess I can put in my 2 cents. I for one don't have problem with "heavy" machine guns knocking out a half track, or maybe even a damaged tank. Lucky shots can happen. Maybe a hit on a fuel can?? Just guessing. But I've had my complaint's about the German supermen and machines in some instances in past versions. I haven't play v8 enough to form an opinion.

The horse is dead, but anyway: Those things happened before 8.0 as well. .50 cals could damage tracks and were/are murders on any armored car and softer.

The beef with the first (now *fixed*) 8.0 release was that 7.62mm MG broke tracks. Frequently.

[FlashfyreSP]

After reading this thread, and a few others like it here at Matrix, I believe this all comes down to one basic issue:

"Fair and Balanced" vs. "Historically Realistic"

1. Realistics want the OOBs to reflect the actual units, weapons, tactics, doctrine, and training of those nations whose armed forces participated in the war. Good or bad, green or veteran, well-led or not, these folks want to re-create battles along the same lines as the actual events.

2. Balancers want the OOBs to be "adjusted" so that each side in a game has a viable (not necessarily equal) chance of winning the battle. This means "improving" those nations whose armed forces were outmoded in equipment, tactics, leadership, or training (e.g. the French, Belgium, and Brits in 1940, the Germans in 1944-45, the Soviets throughout) so that when played, these forces will give a good account of themselves, regardless of realism or the actual game-play of their leader.

Both sides have their pluses and minuses...I won't go into them, since most of us know what they are. The only point I want to comment on is this: the OOBs will never be right for everyone. If the majority of players want balance, that is what they should get. If the majority want realism, then the same applies. And the powers-that-be are most likely focusing on just that; what does the MAJORITY want?

I for one like a little of both...I don't want to play with "fantasy" weapons, but I also don't enjoy playing a battle as the French in 1940 and watching my troops flee the field on Turn 2 because a couple of Stukas flew overhead.

One last comment...the amount of rancor being shown about a freely-available game (and it IS only a game) is disturbing. Negative criticisms and sarcastic digs do not improve a product; they divert attention from the real issues to defending against personal attacks.

[KG Erwin]

Excellent post, Flashfyre. Thank you. [:)]

[Tombstone]

Well, the people who want a balance experience don't require a tweak in the weapons systems themselves. It can all happen in the values upon force selection. If my forces are way inferior I have to pay less. But how much less? Now were in the realm of opinion. There really need not be any changes to what people think are historically accurate oobs, but this is a trap. Problems come up when trying to make what looks like accurate oobs at the individual unit stat level because the system itself doesn't 100% accurately reflect reality (which is an unreasonable goal really). Given that the system can't reproduce 100% realistic results the oobs can't be 100% realistic/historical if the values are set according to real world numbers. Armor penetration (which is quite awesome as it is) is a good example. The complex calculations represent the dev teams best formula for trajectory and penetration, but its not perfect. That means that giving every weapon it's real world penetration value and armor thickness will NEVER produce 100% accurate results. The oobs and the system need to meet part-way, and that's where all the misunderstanding and opinions and ideas come in. What do YOU think will happen when a Sherman with a short 76mm hits a Tiger on the front of it's turret at a 15 degree angle from 800 meters away and 4 meters above? Well it depends, and a lot of things have to be abstracted and a lot of assumtions have to be made for the system just to work. Mathematic abstractions of reality tend to have some degenerative results at the ends of its ranges, especially if a random variable is thrown in there.

This is not as cut and dry as people who want history and people who want balance. They want the same thing... for things to represent real world challenges and real world results. Since only a small amount of the real world challenges are mathematic trying to create them organically in a system is not easy. (And so far, unattainable. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try tho!)

Tomo

[KG Erwin]

Yes, Tomo. Now we're getting on the right track. My other responsibilties take precedence over all of this (family, work and all that other real world stuff), but I will keep you abreast of the general flow of the OOB Team's efforts.
However, I am NOT their spokesman. My overriding responsibility is to this forum. Over the next few weeks, you may not see me posting so much, but you guys are being exemplary in your conduct and quality of postings... Keep it up. [:)]

[JJKettunen]

ORIGINAL: FlashfyreSP

"Fair and Balanced" vs. "Historically Realistic"

As already pointed out, balancing can be done with proper unit pricing, not by making disneyland versions of certain weapons and all the aircrafts.

ORIGINAL: FlashfyreSPI for one like a little of both...I don't want to play with "fantasy" weapons, but I also don't enjoy playing a battle as the French in 1940 and watching my troops flee the field on Turn 2 because a couple of Stukas flew overhead.

So you really think that happened in western front 1940? Oh, please...

ORIGINAL: FlashfyreSPOne last comment...the amount of rancor being shown about a freely-available game (and it IS only a game) is disturbing. Negative criticisms and sarcastic digs do not improve a product; they divert attention from the real issues to defending against personal attacks.

I haven't seen any rancor yet, and if all criticism is seen only as negative and sarcasm is outlawed, then it's no wonder that once credible OOBs can be mutilated at will.

[JJKettunen]

ORIGINAL: Tombstone

Well, the people who want a balance experience don't require a tweak in the weapons systems themselves. It can all happen in the values upon force selection. If my forces are way inferior I have to pay less. But how much less? Now were in the realm of opinion. There really need not be any changes to what people think are historically accurate oobs, but this is a trap. Problems come up when trying to make what looks like accurate oobs at the individual unit stat level because the system itself doesn't 100% accurately reflect reality (which is an unreasonable goal really). Given that the system can't reproduce 100% realistic results the oobs can't be 100% realistic/historical if the values are set according to real world numbers. Armor penetration (which is quite awesome as it is) is a good example. The complex calculations represent the dev teams best formula for trajectory and penetration, but its not perfect. That means that giving every weapon it's real world penetration value and armor thickness will NEVER produce 100% accurate results. The oobs and the system need to meet part-way, and that's where all the misunderstanding and opinions and ideas come in. What do YOU think will happen when a Sherman with a short 76mm hits a Tiger on the front of it's turret at a 15 degree angle from 800 meters away and 4 meters above? Well it depends, and a lot of things have to be abstracted and a lot of assumtions have to be made for the system just to work. Mathematic abstractions of reality tend to have some degenerative results at the ends of its ranges, especially if a random variable is thrown in there.

There are no 100% accurate results in any case...Anyway what we can expect is that if there's a systematic error produced by using real values based on hard facts, then all the weapons have to be tweaked systematically in same way, not cherry picking certain units to fit some anecdotes and myths. 'Nuff said.

ORIGINAL: TombstoneThis is not as cut and dry as people who want history and people who want balance. They want the same thing... for things to represent real world challenges and real world results. Since only a small amount of the real world challenges are mathematic trying to create them organically in a system is not easy. (And so far, unattainable. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try tho!)

Realism, however difficult to achieve, should be the goal. Balancing is done with unit pricing, not by tweaking unit data to fit their "fixed" prices.

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: Keke

ORIGINAL: Tombstone

Well, the people who want a balance experience don't require a tweak in the weapons systems themselves. It can all happen in the values upon force selection. If my forces are way inferior I have to pay less. But how much less? Now were in the realm of opinion. There really need not be any changes to what people think are historically accurate oobs, but this is a trap. Problems come up when trying to make what looks like accurate oobs at the individual unit stat level because the system itself doesn't 100% accurately reflect reality (which is an unreasonable goal really). Given that the system can't reproduce 100% realistic results the oobs can't be 100% realistic/historical if the values are set according to real world numbers. Armor penetration (which is quite awesome as it is) is a good example. The complex calculations represent the dev teams best formula for trajectory and penetration, but its not perfect. That means that giving every weapon it's real world penetration value and armor thickness will NEVER produce 100% accurate results. The oobs and the system need to meet part-way, and that's where all the misunderstanding and opinions and ideas come in. What do YOU think will happen when a Sherman with a short 76mm hits a Tiger on the front of it's turret at a 15 degree angle from 800 meters away and 4 meters above? Well it depends, and a lot of things have to be abstracted and a lot of assumtions have to be made for the system just to work. Mathematic abstractions of reality tend to have some degenerative results at the ends of its ranges, especially if a random variable is thrown in there.

There are no 100% accurate results in any case...Anyway what we can expect is that if there's a systematic error produced by using real values based on hard facts, then all the weapons have to be tweaked systematically in same way, not cherry picking certain units to fit some anecdotes and myths. 'Nuff said.

ORIGINAL: TombstoneThis is not as cut and dry as people who want history and people who want balance. They want the same thing... for things to represent real world challenges and real world results. Since only a small amount of the real world challenges are mathematic trying to create them organically in a system is not easy. (And so far, unattainable. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try tho!)

Realism, however difficult to achieve, should be the goal. Balancing is done with unit pricing, not by tweaking unit data to fit their "fixed" prices.

There just seems to be this strange need for 'balance' all the time, which incidentally usually even extends to individual units themselves, such that one's Sherman would stand up against another's Tiger etc. I thought part of the idea to playing wargames was to "get away" from the cookie-cutter syndrome of checkers or chess. Besides, if somebody wants to really play like that they can always have the same side face each other. I think this desire for balance is making wargaming more and more undesireable; it seems to stem largely from the RTS crowd as though it's some dogma that all sides should have the same units and that they should all have a successful counter-unit to each of the opponents units (basically rock/paper/scissors).

[Rune Iversen]

ORIGINAL: Keke

ORIGINAL: FlashfyreSP

"Fair and Balanced" vs. "Historically Realistic"

As already pointed out, balancing can be done with proper unit pricing, not by making disneyland versions of certain weapons and all the aircrafts.

ORIGINAL: FlashfyreSPI for one like a little of both...I don't want to play with "fantasy" weapons, but I also don't enjoy playing a battle as the French in 1940 and watching my troops flee the field on Turn 2 because a couple of Stukas flew overhead.

So you really think that happened in western front 1940? Oh, please...

ORIGINAL: FlashfyreSPOne last comment...the amount of rancor being shown about a freely-available game (and it IS only a game) is disturbing. Negative criticisms and sarcastic digs do not improve a product; they divert attention from the real issues to defending against personal attacks.

I haven't seen any rancor yet, and if all criticism is seen only as negative and sarcasm is outlawed, then it's no wonder that once credible OOBs can be mutilated at will.

Beer

...and the truth shall set you free...

[harlekwin]

Rancor?

Tomo I must have a different definition than you in mind for that word.

Rancor means somehing other than sarcasm, and questioning.

[AmmoSgt]

Well as long as I am logged on ..
Folks wake up and smell the coffee .. stop wasting your time trying to use logic and facts to move the OOB's towards something realistic , they aren't listening they don't want to hear it . Look at the results and the total BS answers you get to even the best documented posting with even the best reasoned arguements .. it over folks ..

[harlekwin]

ORIGINAL: AmmoSgt

Well as long as I am logged on ..
Folks wake up and smell the coffee .. stop wasting your time trying to use logic and facts to move the OOB's towards something realistic , they aren't listening they don't want to hear it . Look at the results and the total BS answers you get to even the best documented posting with even the best reasoned arguements .. it over folks ..

Ammo don't give up the fight. We may not be able to alter the course on this but we may be able to protect CL/CA from this sort of thing. Please don't give up I am sorry I did not come to your aid and I missed your posts.

We need your help. It is NOT over yet.

Facts trump feel if enough people voice that sentiment.

[Rune Iversen]

ORIGINAL: AmmoSgt

Well as long as I am logged on ..
Folks wake up and smell the coffee .. stop wasting your time trying to use logic and facts to move the OOB's towards something realistic , they aren't listening they don't want to hear it . Look at the results and the total BS answers you get to even the best documented posting with even the best reasoned arguements .. it over folks ..

Sigh....

I fear you are right[:(]

But we can at least go down fighting.