Matrix Games Forums

A couple of points in this necro-thread...

1. As Alfred says one thing that many, many people here ( and in general ) are very bad at is understanding the difference between what they WANT to be true and what can actually be supported by facts and objective reality.

2. Very few people here appear to have evolved systemic views of the game wherein they are able to conceptualise how a change in one area will impact on others. This has, as Alfred has said, led to people demanding changes previously ( usually ill-supported by evidentiary bases ) which have had all manner of unforseen ramifications, ramifications which have harmed the overall game.

3. It seems that opinions re: this new beta are operating in the absence of any experiments ( designed so as to allow multiple repeats of a given day with no changes to orders etc so weather and the game algorithm would be the only major variables ) which have provided objective data to compare this data with previous betas or history.

It strikes me that someone needs to put this on a footing whereby there is reasonably objective evidence from a publicly available save which can be run under new and old betas to allow comparison of results once a statistically meaningful number of tests has been run. Until that point in time the discussion simply doesn't have the statistical footing to accomplish anything meaningful beyond the airing of "isn't it strange", "no it isn't" opinions, IMO.

edited as the previous brought nothing of substance to the topic at hand.


But,

I would appreciate antthing that stops one unstoppable force (whomever that may be but in most wars early KB?) from sinking everything in sight in one huge raid which would seem to go very far from historical precendent. Heck, even something planned and practiced for months (PH) still resulted in three waves, for numerous reasons, fuel, density over target, etc. I am all for larger number of smaller raids.

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

A couple of points in this necro-thread...

2. Very few people here appear to have evolved systemic views of the game wherein they are able to conceptualise how a change in one area will impact on others. This has, as Alfred has said, led to people demanding changes previously ( usually ill-supported by evidentiary bases ) which have had all manner of unforseen ramifications, ramifications which have harmed the overall game.

Well, in this case its actually the other way around? A quite dramatic change was implemented to the air war due to a bug fix. Personally I have spoken against fixing this bug because it changes so much. The bug has probably been present for a very long time. It might actually have been there from the start. I have been unable to get a response from michaelm on that. But I have played this game for a very long time and I have seen nothing like it before this bug was fixed. That is why I believe it has been present for a such long time.

If so. What other balancing and tweaking has been done while this bug was active? Doesn´t this bug fix in that case undo all that?

As you say changes often have unforeseen ramifications. I see no reason why this change should be different? I don´t think anyone disagrees that this changes a lot gameplay wise. One can always have an opinion on if the change is for better or worse. But I don´t think that is really relevant in this case? Its a larger question than that. Should big gameplay changes be implemented this late in the games development without extensive testing? Personally I don´t think so for the exact same reason you stated. We don´t know the ramifications of it.

I can see a number of things that are affected by this change. People more experienced than me can probably make a even longer list of things affected.

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

3. It seems that opinions re: this new beta are operating in the absence of any experiments ( designed so as to allow multiple repeats of a given day with no changes to orders etc so weather and the game algorithm would be the only major variables ) which have provided objective data to compare this data with previous betas or history.

It strikes me that someone needs to put this on a footing whereby there is reasonably objective evidence from a publicly available save which can be run under new and old betas to allow comparison of results once a statistically meaningful number of tests has been run. Until that point in time the discussion simply doesn't have the statistical footing to accomplish anything meaningful beyond the airing of "isn't it strange", "no it isn't" opinions, IMO.

I did do some experiments based on a sandbox game and so did my opponent.

They are located in this thread: tm.asp?m=3198512

I´m not a scientist but the difference was strikingly obvious between official and BETA. Strangely enough the bug fixed wasn´t noted in the change log but the change occurred somewhere before 1120b. Michaelm then made a slight adjustment later on that 1120 version.

English is not my native language so I´m not entirely sure what your last paragraph mean. But if I understand correctly you think further testing should be done? If so I agree. No harm can be come from further testing.

The best procedure should be to "undo" the fix from the BETA. Do some proper testing to try and find out how it changes the game over a longer period of time. (IMO).

EDIT: Hm, strangely enough there is a now a entry in the changelog:
19/10/12: 1119b - Restore air co-ordination chance
No idea how I have missed that. I could swear I read it from top to bottom just 2 weeks ago!

ORIGINAL: Alfred

I adapt to whatever is before me. I don't demand that something be changed to my perceived view of what is correct.

Alfred

No? You just demand that PEOPLE change to your perceived view of what is correct.

You are growing far too pompous for your own good Alfred.

ii is posible to code two differen escort modes - close (whcih will try to link with bigest bomber raids, even if that means second or third wawe) ) and high altitude whcih will try to fly at front of stike and try to supress most of enemy fighters ?

ORIGINAL: czert2

ii is posible to code two differen escort modes - close (whcih will try to link with bigest bomber raids, even if that means second or third wawe) ) and high altitude whcih will try to fly at front of stike and try to supress most of enemy fighters ?

no, there's just escort or sweep

I've played with the latest beta a lot and, to be honest, i do find that the new (un)coordination value is very very good, cause it brings more unpredictability to the game results.
Guys, with the old bug present before Micheal changed it, the 200 firing passes rule was, imho, killing the late war games.
The Allies could simply send 400 4Es (even unescorted) to smash everything they could reach. The Japs, on the other side, could sink 30+ carriers in a single battle simply placing 200 Frances escorted by 200 Oscars, knowing that, 9 out 0f 10 times, they could have arrived all togheder among the american fleet.
Now you can end up having 4x50 flights of Frances arrive unescorted or, if you're lucky, you can have a couple of decent packages escorted.
Much much better if you ask me. Much more playable and much more adherent to reality.
 
As LoBaron said many many times, you don't have to consider the single packages met by the CAP as different battles. it's the same battle, just fought on different portions of the sky and at slightly different moments.
 
That is also true for sweeps. I've seen, with the old patch, coordinated sweeps of 3/400 Tojos, completely smashing any CAP the allied could have. That is no longer possible, thank God!
Now if you wanna have the advantage given by sweep, you have to take your chances that your groups will arrive un-coordinated, thus facing a much more efficient CAP.
 
And the same goes for CV-CV battles. With the old patch it was a "one shot battle". a single wave of bombers escorted by hundreds of fighters. Even if you had a CAP of 1500 planes you could be sure that the bombers could have arrived almost undamaged over the enemy fleet.
 
I really do like the present system. Just my modest opinion, obviously

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

I've played with the latest beta a lot and, to be honest, i do find that the new (un)coordination value is very very good, cause it brings more unpredictability to the game results.
Guys, with the old bug present before Micheal changed it, the 200 firing passes rule was, imho, killing the late war games.
The Allies could simply send 400 4Es (even unescorted) to smash everything they could reach. The Japs, on the other side, could sink 30+ carriers in a single battle simply placing 200 Frances escorted by 200 Oscars, knowing that, 9 out 0f 10 times, they could have arrived all togheder among the american fleet.
Now you can end up having 4x50 flights of Frances arrive unescorted or, if you're lucky, you can have a couple of decent packages escorted.
Much much better if you ask me. Much more playable and much more adherent to reality.

As LoBaron said many many times, you don't have to consider the single packages met by the CAP as different battles. it's the same battle, just fought on different portions of the sky and at slightly different moments.

That is also true for sweeps. I've seen, with the old patch, coordinated sweeps of 3/400 Tojos, completely smashing any CAP the allied could have. That is no longer possible, thank God!
Now if you wanna have the advantage given by sweep, you have to take your chances that your groups will arrive un-coordinated, thus facing a much more efficient CAP.

And the same goes for CV-CV battles. With the old patch it was a "one shot battle". a single wave of bombers escorted by hundreds of fighters. Even if you had a CAP of 1500 planes you could be sure that the bombers could have arrived almost undamaged over the enemy fleet.

I really do like the present system. Just my modest opinion, obviously

I'm glad to hear you say that. I haven't seen the degree of coordination issues that some report (I shared loads of combat files with JocMeister for him to compare), and my sense of the air model presently is that it's dangerous for both sides. You definitely get advantages as you should when using better planes/pilots, shorter range, and so on, but there are no outright guarantees, just advantages. I'm not saying there isn't some issue or other lurking that could be uncovered (in something this complex there almost always is), but things look pretty good to me in day to day play. I really am not seeing any game-ruining factors that some people seem to be implying (or almost implying).

ORIGINAL: witpqs
(I shared loads of combat files with JocMeister for him to compare)

Sorry for not getting back to you on that. Just havn´t had the time to look at them yet! [:(]

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

ORIGINAL: witpqs
(I shared loads of combat files with JocMeister for him to compare)

Sorry for not getting back to you on that. Just havn´t had the time to look at them yet! [:(]

You did get back to me at least once already. [:)]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

ORIGINAL: witpqs
(I shared loads of combat files with JocMeister for him to compare)

Sorry for not getting back to you on that. Just havn´t had the time to look at them yet! [:(]

You did get back to me at least once already. [:)]

Yes I know. But I still havn´t replied to your second PM. I intend to but I wanted to look at the CRs a bit more closely before getting back to you! [:)]