Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: denisonh

I think there needs to be some " quantatative explanation" as to the benfit of replacing Ghormley (HQ, SOPAC) with Halsey.

Halsey is one of the better leaders in the game, so what is the benfit of his sitting at Noumea cooling his heels vis leading a CV TF?

In reality, he made a tremendous impact on SoPac when he took command. How is this translated into a "measureable effect"?

If there are hundreds of lines of code to use leaders influence the outcomes, can the programmer give the "layman's explanation" as to what is the magnitude of the effects of the HQ leaders with respect to Naval combat. If there are none, why not?

ORIGINAL: dtravel

How about just some real info on what leaders do, period. Something more than "aggressive good, careful bad" description we currently have.

I really don't want this to sound like a flame or attack but I can't think of a softer way of phrasing this.

One of the most important lessons I learned as a programmer was that you document your code with comments in it explaining what various sections are supposed to do. Using such commentary as a guide it should not be hard to come up with a few paragraphs explaining the general purposes in relatively simple language. I'm not asking for exact formulas. I'm asking for "High Inspiration will raise the unit's morale faster" or "Highly Aggressive leaders will cause TFs to use more of their ammo in bombardment missions and remain in contact during surface combats longer". (Examples pulled out of thin air.)

If its only a few hundred lines of code then the affects are relatively simple and should not require too much effort.

Documentation? Pffft. That's as bad as flowcharting.

(Needless to say, debugging my own programs is a pain [:D])

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

Documentation? Pffft. That's as bad as flowcharting.

(Needless to say, debugging my own programs is a pain [:D])

I will attempt to refrain from explaining to you just how much trouble people like you cause people like me when you've finally gone senile or received a Peter Principle promotion. [:'(]

(As for flowcharting, one of my greatest triumphs two jobs ago was flowcharting the data flow in an existing JCL job. [;)])

ORIGINAL: dtravel

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

Documentation? Pffft. That's as bad as flowcharting.

(Needless to say, debugging my own programs is a pain [:D])

I will attempt to refrain from explaining to you just how much trouble people like you cause people like me when you've finally gone senile or received a Peter Principle promotion. [:'(]

(As for flowcharting, one of my greatest triumphs two jobs ago was flowcharting the data flow in an existing JCL job. [;)])

Gawd that sounds boring!!!!! You must be about as much fun jawing over a few beers with as an engineer![:D]

I hate doing flowcharts, because then (much like War Plan Orange) I go "Hey, lets do this!" And the final design looks nothing like the flowchart. So I have to options. Trash the flowchart, or do another one... Or I can call it "beta" [:D]

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

I hate doing flowcharts, because then (much like War Plan Orange) I go "Hey, lets do this!" And the final design looks nothing like the flowchart. So I have to options. Trash the flowchart, or do another one... Or I can call it "beta" [:D]

But it sounds SOOOOOO BORING!

It is.... that's why I'm glad I went to a technical school and learned it, before I threw 5 years of college down the drain.

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Mike Wood

Hello...

What they do is contained in hundreds of lines of code spread out over dozens of functions. I added the descriptions instead of just showing raw values, because those values would be meaningless without the hundreds of lines of code and the way they interact. You can trust the officer evaluations.

Michael Wood

Several months ago you yourself wrote that you would put those raw numerical values for leader descriptions in addition to already existing descriptive text that we have now.

Is that still in your plans (I most sincerely hope so)?


Thanks in advance!


Leo "Apollo11"

Hello...

Yup (a promise is a promise). May not make this build. May have to wait until next patch.

Bye...

Michael Wood

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Mike Wood

Hello...

What they do is contained in hundreds of lines of code spread out over dozens of functions. I added the descriptions instead of just showing raw values, because those values would be meaningless without the hundreds of lines of code and the way they interact. You can trust the officer evaluations.

Michael Wood

Several months ago you yourself wrote that you would put those raw numerical values for leader descriptions in addition to already existing descriptive text that we have now.

Is that still in your plans (I most sincerely hope so)?


Thanks in advance!


Leo "Apollo11"

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Mike Wood

Hello...

Yup (a promise is a promise). May not make this build. May have to wait until next patch.

Bye...

Michael Wood

Thanks Mike - all of us here have utmost respect for you and your work! [&o][&o][&o]


Leo "Apollo11"

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: dtravel

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

Documentation? Pffft. That's as bad as flowcharting.

(Needless to say, debugging my own programs is a pain [:D])

I will attempt to refrain from explaining to you just how much trouble people like you cause people like me when you've finally gone senile or received a Peter Principle promotion. [:'(]

(As for flowcharting, one of my greatest triumphs two jobs ago was flowcharting the data flow in an existing JCL job. [;)])

Gawd that sounds boring!!!!! You must be about as much fun jawing over a few beers with as an engineer![:D]

It was boring, but I had to know what was really happening in the job processing as opposed to the vague, incomplete information I was given on what was supposed to be happening. Ended up being one of the biggest bug killers I ever did. Every time someone proposed a change to the job I was able to point at the flowchart and go "No, can't do that because of this" in a way even the supervisors understood. [:'(] (It also let me easily insert a new step that actually worked when we actually did need one.)

As for the jawing, can't drink and I proudly come from a long line of engineers!! (Both grandfathers were aircraft design engineers at Boeing during WWII.)

There many bug with leader, nut most could live with them if we knew what the effects of leaders are. For instance how does aggressiveness affect land combat or what affect would a leader describe as ' best suited for a combat unit' as opposed to on 'best suited for an assault unit'?

And while your at it put a dam filter in, I'm tired of clicking on each leader in turn to find one described as 'best suited for bombing' etc.

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

ORIGINAL: Mike Wood

Yup (a promise is a promise). May not make this build. May have to wait until next patch.

Thanks Mike - all of us here have utmost respect for you and your work! [&o][&o][&o]

I'll second that Apollo11.

Also Mike's comment above, and the fact that he can find time to post may mean he's close to finalising the next patch. Then again, it's probably just wishful thinking on my part. [:D]

I don't know how anyone can consider this game playable while the leader leak persists.

Here's my most recent example, and I am not trying to be a smart@$$, criticize anyone, or badmouth Matrix/2by3. I just would like someone to step up and take a shot at an answer. I now have a WO 0/0 as the captain of USS Enterprise. What is the practical effect when I put this ship into a TF?

The second part of the problem is almost as exasperating. I've got some PPs saved up, so, for the sake of keeping the game going, I thought I would just change commanders and let it go at that pending v. 1.4. No. When I put Enterprise into an ACTF and click on the WO in order to change him out, I get the list of available surface combatant captains. Not one is stated to be qualified for aircraft carrier command (except Mitscher, who can do both, but already commands Hornet).

As the turns go by, I am certain that I will be losing more admirals and captains in all the bizarre ways that have been reported so far (PT boat with the TF commander on board goes down, next thing you know, a Japanese army major is in charge, for example). I get the feeling that by 1945, not a single historical commander will remain. The whole thing seems to pick up speed the deeper into the game you get (I didn't see much of this in December 1941, but it's rampant by April 1942).

So what should I do? Leave it alone and play along with goofy commanders whose abilities affect game play in ways I cannot understand? Quit? What?

If you (a) don't use computer control and (b) take your leaders off ships *before* disbanding them, you will not loose a single ship based leader.

Don't know if you have read the updated workarounds posted here ...

I know what you mean. I now have battleship commanders conning the Lexington and Saratoga. When I send them into combat, what is going to happen? If because of this bug they are hors de combat, then my only available flattop right now is Enterprise.

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

If you (a) don't use computer control and (b) take your leaders off ships *before* disbanding them, you will not loose a single ship based leader.

Don't know if you have read the updated workarounds posted here ...

Mr. Frag, in my 1.3 new game, I had NOTHING on computer control, made 2 surface TFs, and lost a leader.

By no computer control do you also mean no games vs the AI?

In addition, I lose leaders even when I don't disband TFs. I transferred the Sara to the Lady Lex's TF, and in a few turns (read: not next turn) their leaders changed.

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

If you (a) don't use computer control and (b) take your leaders off ships *before* disbanding them, you will not loose a single ship based leader.

Don't know if you have read the updated workarounds posted here ...

I never use computer control. What do you mean, "take your leaders off your ships ...?" This ship was in Pearl Harbor, and her captain was not the TF commander when the TF was disbanded.

Are you saying that you should remove the TF commander before disbanding the TF? Can you have a TF without a commander? I guess I'm just not getting what the "workarounds" are. I've tried several people's suggestions, without success.

Mr. Frag, in 1.3 new new game, I had NOTHING on computer control, made 2 surface TFs, and lost a leader.

You might want to detail exactly what you did so it gets added to the list. I don't see anything that covers that and your example is too vague to be sure if it is one of the bugs identified.

Made 2 TF's as it clicked create TF #1, added unique ships, assigned a leader, clicked create TF #2, assigned unique ships, assigned a different leader?

Did you assign the leader from inside the create TF or after creating the TF?

Quit assuming we are looking over your shoulder as you do it [:D]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

If you (a) don't use computer control and (b) take your leaders off ships *before* disbanding them, you will not loose a single ship based leader.

Don't know if you have read the updated workarounds posted here ...

To deassign the leader do I have to select WO as commander or some poor SOB from the bottom of the food chain?