Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
Yeah. Let's lock the thead. This is politically incorrect as trying to fix the games gross issues (or at least make them player toggled) is heresy.[8|]

If we do the AAR I want it to be CHS with your A2A mod in it. I want to see if it succeeds at correcting the grossly flawed stock uber cap and overall bloodiness in larger scale battles. No point in using the stock air stats.

Has nothing to do with political correctness. As mentioned, this has all been hashed out before. Repeating it seventeen times over won't change anything or convince anyone. Play the AAR You and TJ as Japan. Show us the uber-supply. Put up or lock up.

How best to do this? Like my earlier attempt with merchant capacities reduced to 20% of CHS levels and supply and resources in non mainland bases reduced 90% (oil increased by 90%)? Leaving as is may just result in the supply levels being high/low subject to opinion. Gutting it and being able to achieve historical goals would prove something. Perhaps 50%? What?

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Sarcasm personified

Hi, No sarcasm. TJ must realize by now the only way he is going to get what he is suggesting is to do it and show the rest of us how it is done.

MR FRag has already shown there are programmers and artists here to do the actual work all TJ has to do is write the design. Mr frag says it can all be done in under 3 months. Yet here we are.

I wonder. TJ will you let Matrix publish your game?

Even with code that already exists in the game? I beg to differ.

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

ORIGINAL: moses

Original Mr. Frag.
Actual Results: While this is a short term problem, it is offset by the extra fuel burnt coupled with wear and tear on the BB's that take forever to repair and clog up your repair ports forever meaning other ships can't get the repairs they need.

Yes good. This type of thinking needs to be repeated because it is the type of thinking that has always gone into developing wargames since well before we had computers.

Unfortunatley some will now say " So you're admitting that fuel consumption and BB systems damage are screwed up as well."

I understand, thats where people like you are of great value ... you don't immediately jump down the "it's broken path" without at least reasoning it out for the long term effect. [;)]

This game is not perfect, nothing really is, but it does put you in the drivers seat for something pretty epic.

There are millions of things that could have been done differently, but the overall effect at the end of the day is pretty much the same ... you have the task of managing a nightmare ... too much information and not enough information at the very same time. Even if it's off by as much as 50% ... it still achieves the end result ... making you feel like you are in over your head.

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

I'm willing but I want some adjustments made as stated above. I want this to be irrefutable. Be nice that when proven some assurances of change were made.

ORIGINAL: moses

Original: Mr Frag:

I understand, thats where people like you are of great value...

Original: Nikademus

A voice of reason

Now if Mogami says something nice TJ will have a fit. I can just hear him screaming 'fanboy' into the monitor.

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Why, CHS has altered roads and centres etc making it supply less abundant and easily moved? Gutting it further as stated earlier provides a much better starting point than stock. If we manage with all these cuts then something is wrong. By simply using the stock scenario I'm concerned that the proof will be too subjective...what is success judged on?

Because only a small majority play CHS. Your complaints are aimed at WitP the main game. You want a UNIVERSAL CHANGE that will impact all mods as well as stock. Thus you must use the stock as the control.

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

(God I loved that game but could never hold enough players together long enough to teach them the rules. I've never lived in a town where there were more then 2 or 3 wargamers in the first place.)


This is a major reason many of us have switched to computer wargames. While most of you abhor the AI, at least it is always there when you're ready to play.

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

(God I loved that game but could never hold enough players together long enough to teach them the rules. I've never lived in a town where there were more then 2 or 3 wargamers in the first place.)


This is a major reason many of us have switched to computer wargames. While most of you abhor the AI, at least it is always there when you're ready to play.

Yeah, except in the case with this game there isn't any there there.

ORIGINAL: Mogami

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

(God I loved that game but could never hold enough players together long enough to teach them the rules. I've never lived in a town where there were more then 2 or 3 wargamers in the first place.)


This is a major reason many of us have switched to computer wargames. While most of you abhor the AI, at least it is always there when you're ready to play.

Yeah, except in the case with this game there isn't any there there.

Hi, And you've won how many games against the AI? Both sides?

None. But I've toyed around with it versus the AI from both sides of the board and in head-to-head mode enough to know that the AI isn't so hot. Please don't tell me you want to argue about that, too.

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

So ... I'm sitting here with $60K and coders who cost me $28/hr, thats 2,000 hours of dedicated coding. (10 weeks @ 5 FTE)

Sell 1,200 copies @ $50 and I get my money back.

Waiting for that design document

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Even with code that already exists in the game? I beg to differ.

Ron ... don't go there ... keep your comments to things you kow something about.

Even the act of compiling code without making any changes at all can add bugs.

ORIGINAL: Oznoyng

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

I'm willing but I want some adjustments made as stated above. I want this to be irrefutable. Be nice that when proven some assurances of change were made.

Your complaint is against stock, not against CHS, or anything else. Play stock, or don't complain about it.

Simply put, supply is the operational problem according to you. Fine, prove it in stock, and play the Japanese while you are at it. There are a lot of holes in your knowledge of the Japanese. Maybe by playing Japan rather than theorizing about what happens you will see what Mogami, Nik, and I see. Then again, maybe you won't. That's why they call it a test.

Incidentally, I don't suppose you ever considered just sticking Resource stockpiles on dot bases as a way around the resource tied to supply problem? Sticking 99,999 resources on Belitung Island, for instance, would keep Japan from extracting resources until they had built the base to a level 1 port (resources can't be loaded at a base without a port - try loading resources at Tueguegaro...) You might try some variation on that to see if it has a positive impact from your perspective. Also, you could change the nationality of some dot bases to IJA and put a Daily resource amount on each. It would not change the who owns the base initially, but would act like a resource center without the supply. The only downside is that Daily Resources can not be damaged. A combination of all three approaches might work out best. Part resource centers, part stockpile, part daily resource production (this also eliminates the problem of accumulating supply that will be captured). I dunno, I still think you are wrong that it is the problem, but there are some things to try within the capabilities of the eidtor to simulate what you want to do.