The return of tristanjohn

[mogami]

Hi Lets face it. They are not going to test their theory, they are not going to play against anyone else and thery are not going to design a better mousetrap just tell us that it can be done and in glittering generalities describe the post "someone else does the work" product as better.

[Mr.Frag]

If it's really as daunting as you guys make out then I think the best business model would be to buy a few dozen cases of playing cards and have those done up in ships and tanks and planes.

I have 300 page macro design documents for stuff a hell of a lot simpler then WitP ...

Understand what a design document's goal is ... It removes any form of thought or debate so coders do what they do best ... code!

Anything left up in the air means a coder is now thinking about stuff instead of writing code. That means you are now throwing money away.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi Lets face it. They are not going to test their theory, they are not going to play against anyone else and thery are not going to design a better mousetrap just tell us that it can be done and in glittering generalities describe the post "someone else does the work" product as better.

We are chatting about it right now. Why just limit this to supply? Why not use this to test a whack of things. if proven right I want things fixed. If I'm wrong I'll shut up. I want some guarantees baby! Not wasting any more time on this just to be told I'm not looking at it right.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi Lets face it. They are not going to test their theory,

Nope....doesn't look like it.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

If it's really as daunting as you guys make out then I think the best business model would be to buy a few dozen cases of playing cards and have those done up in ships and tanks and planes.

I have 300 page macro design documents for stuff a hell of a lot simpler then WitP ...

Understand what a design document's goal is ... It removes any form of thought or debate so coders do what they do best ... code!

Anything left up in the air means a coder is now thinking about stuff instead of writing code. That means you are now throwing money away.

So they should have utilized some of the history/military types inmstead of making stuff up prior to coding.[8D]

[Nikademus]

nearly 10 pages of complaining about supply/logistics.....and now you want to add a whole new set of elements?

AAR.....put up or..........................>

[Oznoyng]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
Can't do that either.

Abstracted.....half of the supply captured is destroyed. sorry.

Thanks. I was looking for the exact rule about supply captured, but coud not find a reference to respond to moses...I have this irritating thing called work keeping me from responding atm.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

nearly 10 pages of complaining about supply/logistics.....and now you want to add a whole new set of elements?

AAR.....put up or..........................>

Whose backing off now.

[Nikademus]

You apparantly. Everyone who's seen threads like this knows how easy it is to sidetrack the discussion onto yet another sore point and now 10 pages is suddenly 20. I'm sticking to the point of these last pages....supply/logistics and the alleged rivers of supply Japan gets on the attack.

Faced with a put up or shut up situation....you keep hedging....."why not CHS?" "why not my hackjob mod?" "why not change a bunch other things too?" "what guerantees do i get? ) (WTF???)

[:-]

Like Nike says....."just do it"

[Oznoyng]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
We are chatting about it right now. Why just limit this to supply? Why not use this to test a whack of things. if proven right I want things fixed. If I'm wrong I'll shut up. I want some guarantees baby! Not wasting any more time on this just to be told I'm not looking at it right.

Controls. The more you screw with stuff, the more likely a perceived result will be because of one change and not another. The "mother of all tests" tests nothing.

[mogami]

Hi, They keep thinking the supply in a captured base belonged to the enemy not realizing their own LCU dump what they have into the hex when a base is captured and if the base is on a supply path their own supply from other bases moves there.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Oznoyng

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
We are chatting about it right now. Why just limit this to supply? Why not use this to test a whack of things. if proven right I want things fixed. If I'm wrong I'll shut up. I want some guarantees baby! Not wasting any more time on this just to be told I'm not looking at it right.

Controls. The more you screw with stuff, the more likely a perceived result will be because of one change and not another. The "mother of all tests" tests nothing.

Cutting supply in half and capacities in half using a respected mod/map that already reduces the ease of the logistics model is going to make people think that it was not a fair test?[:)] I'm not about to frigging install another version of this game to use the stock version.

What would your A2A mod do to the test? Nada... Highliting the radioactive submarines to air search will screw supply issue? Nope

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

If it's really as daunting as you guys make out then I think the best business model would be to buy a few dozen cases of playing cards and have those done up in ships and tanks and planes.

I have 300 page macro design documents for stuff a hell of a lot simpler then WitP ...

Understand what a design document's goal is ... It removes any form of thought or debate so coders do what they do best ... code!

Anything left up in the air means a coder is now thinking about stuff instead of writing code. That means you are now throwing money away.

Understood, Ray. But seriously, that's probably the reason this game turned out so bad. Gary just plunged ahead with his little head already full of his "design document" (based on his other similar Pacific systems) without any thought whatsoever if that made a whole lot of sense. Now I realize he's in this for the money, and I appreciate that. I wouldn't work for nothing, never have, never will, and never would expect anyone else to. However. I'm not Gary and I don't have to pay his mortgage, assuming he still has one this late in life. (I paid mine off last year finally. ) I'm me and all I care about is a decent PTO simulation, and what Gary pumped out, no matter how valid the reasons and excuses might be, doesn't make it by half.

[moses]

I don't see that there is anything to test. AB's suggestion is long term supply neutral. Am I missing something?? All my suggestions are long term supply neutral. They have only short term effects.

The suggestion made by AB and others to have the resourse centers produce only resourses and then just produce compensating supply at the HI should result in nearly identical long term supply. It just puts a little extra strain on Japanese shipping. It makes the initial offensive just a tiny bit more difficult. If gives allied subs a few more targets. It makes a little more work for the Japanese player. Beyond that its just a value judgement. Are these thing you want or not?

If people are talking about an entire rebuild of supply then who is listening?

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Oznoyng

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
Can't do that either.

Abstracted.....half of the supply captured is destroyed. sorry.

Thanks. I was looking for the exact rule about supply captured, but coud not find a reference to respond to moses...I have this irritating thing called work keeping me from responding atm.

Prioritize, prioritize!

[mogami]

Hi, And that last post furthered improvement to WITP How? And it will lead to a better next game how? But it did afford you one more shot at GG right?

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Cutting supply in half and capacities in half using a respected mod/map that already reduces the ease of the logistics model is going to make people think that it was not a fair test?[:)] I'm not about to frigging install another version of this game to use the stock version.

Then shut up. Your not willing to prove it using Stock which most people use and that of which you rant about in every thread you post in regardless of what the subject of said thread is.

What would your A2A mod do to the test? Nada...

I agree....but then again i'm not the one who suggested stripping my A2A changes onto the alleged AAR your obviously not going to commit too. You did. [:-]

[Mr.Frag]

Ron ... this is *always* what drove me insane about you ... you can't keep on topic ...

You want to talk about supply, deal with supply. Nothing else matters but supply.

Run the *stock* scenario out of the box with the latest patch. (if you want to use a pretty map, feel free - but with the stock scenario)

I frankly don't care if you play Japan against the AI ... but PLAY it.

[mdiehl]

@Mogami
"Freedom 75" -- get it? [;)]

@Tristanjohn
All I know is that my Hollywood ambitions will be realized if I could only be featured as a "Way Cool Scientist" on Bill Nye the Science Guy. And that is maybe more likely than getting what you want in the near future from this product, judging by the general way the conversation is going. Which is to say, I hear you buddy but at this point yer flogging a dead horse and the crowd is starting to disperse.

[mogami]

ORIGINAL: moses

I don't see that there is anything to test. AB's suggestion is long term supply neutral. Am I missing something?? All my suggestions are long term supply neutral. They have only short term effects.

The suggestion made by AB and others to have the resourse centers produce only resourses and then just produce compensating supply at the HI should result in nearly identical long term supply. It just puts a little extra strain on Japanese shipping. It makes the initial offensive just a tiny bit more difficult. If gives allied subs a few more targets. It makes a little more work for the Japanese player. Beyond that its just a value judgement. Are these thing you want or not?

If people are talking about an entire rebuild of supply then who is listening?

Hi, Moses I'm wishing they test scenario 15 as is just so they discover that many Japanese never touch the supply in SRA at all. They might use it in the hex it is created after the SRA fight is over. Myself I send many AK to Toboali to pickup resources. If there was 0 supply they would come loaded with as much as Toboali required but no extra Japanese AK would be sub targets. Toboali might generate enough interest to send AK for pick up once or twice a year but I don't think so. It's one of the last places I go in SRA because of air proximity to Singapore Palembang and Bataivia . You need to secure these first. If you take any major production center while it remains in Allied air range the B-17 or Martins come and damage it and the AK can't move there becasue of air attack.

If there is any impact because of SRA supply generation it is felt post SRA conquest. The supply for expanding into South or Central Pacific has to come from Home Islands. The SRA supply is used to maintain SRA bases where no fighting is occuring and the Japanese discover the best place for replacement aircraft is Japan. Now there are Japanese players who use the SRA to train airgroups they keep a small enemy base and bomb it with all their untrained pilots every turn. I am certain they are using local supply for this. I am just as certain they could import supply as well.

The simple fact remains that in many games the SRA requires over 1,000,000 supply imported from Japan to repair the damage before it produces this supply or even produces oil and resources. I think RS and TJ are simply going by 100 percent of SRA being active during the period Japan has the strength to move beyond SRA and meting the offensive requirments with SRA produced supply.

I think if they actually take the time to simply run Japan long enough to secure from Rangoon south and east to Timor they will find they did it without SRA produced supply. If they attempt to do it I would be satisfied they are sincere. Without their even playing Japan they are only quessing. Ron because he believes what he believes (but he tends to leap to conclusions without data) And TJ because that is what he does.