Posted: Thu Nov 07, 2002 10:59 pm
USSMaine:
HARD_SARGE:
If GG is the only one who can fix the FR, then it's certainly superfluous on my part to harp on it, only the way JC defends it you'd have thought he directly could fix it. I've been in the same boat as you guys a lot of times, where someone is treated like they're a trouble maker for a problem that most everybody acknowledges is there, it's just that they can't recreate it, or whatever. The rather daunting flaw in that argument is despite my being stupid in comparison to the guys who think they spend so much more time on BTR than I do, won't acknowledge that I might just know something about a detail I often see occur, more than they do about a detail they hardly see at all. I CAN recreate, and as I said have even sent a save game file on it. Now, what complicates this is that JC 'might' be able to see my reasoning, and if he was the one fixing it my approach isn't entirely without merit. The only problem as it turns out is that he has to convince someone who is onto other things about a game that died the the minute it hit the shelves. Sorry about all that. Here I was all the time thinking JC was doing this as a objective treatment of fixing the game and was doing so with ocassional console from GG, but it appears now that he's just OOB-wise; my apologies. I've never been on the side of the argument where I'm the kook having problems nobody else seems to have, but this does teach a lesson, that we ought not to treat people who have the problem we've seen, just with much less regularity, as though they're in this for nothing but to start trouble. I say if the problem is there and you have a clue then fix it. If you don't know how to fix, just say so, no big deal, I don't know how to fix it either, but it's the reasons I hear for not fixing something which are often pretty flimsy. What is it about techs that they can't say "I don't know". I work in IT, and I can tell you there's all kinds of idiots who think we're brainboxes and should know everything because we work with the equipment to one extent or the other. It's time to start saying "I don't know" a lot more. If someone outside of IT can get me fired because I admit I don't know, then surely the insane are running the asylum.
It's sad to hear the nobody has got deeper in BTR than what you report, but my case is that I've never gotten past the first month for frustration with the stupid FR (and all-seeing sweeps which imagined or not I see [but at least I can deal with that somewhat]). I know I played USAAF through at least 3-4 times, though it is a quicker play. I still have printouts at home of the loss reports in my dresser drawer, so much did I enjoy the subject of a grand treatment of the aerial conflict. In fact, that's probably why my somewhat inflammatory remarks are such as they are, simply because I'm so disappointed that out of all the games to screw up, BTR would be it. Seriously, most games I don't get on that games forum and talk abotu the screwups. JC's site and this Matrix one are the only game related ones I've ever been on. I don't even consider discussing Civ III on any of those sites, official or otherwise. I guess you'd say I expect more seriousness to gaming out of the wargame-related subject matter, though two games hardly evidences an obsession on my part.
On Civ III, they have a PTW version out, or at least they would if my dipstick area stores in the DFW area carried it (shipped 10/29). No, what they have is the GOTY (Game of the Year) edition which came out the same time, and sports the same full price as the regular Civ III, instead of the slightly discounted partial expansion that PTW is.
JC:
I understand, also, now, that you don't fix FR, but to read that paragraph quoted again, it sure sounds like you're the guy who fixes it. I know, now, you really meant that you've fixed things in general (a lot of time put in), but in discussing FR and saying you fixed things together, without any of the "hey it's not my turf" sort of speech it's not that difficult to think you're the guy. I suppose you do it for some sort of ease of speech and think everyone is on the same page as you, but I make that mistake too on ocassion, and while being that way can be problematic, disclaiming one's self for every conceivable sound bite can be just as much a problem. The disclaiming one's self for every conceivable misunderstanding I see often on some of philosophy meanderings I've had, as some authors repeat the same premise, though it is necessary at times, so insistantly I'm yelling back at them GET ON WITH IT, I UNDERSTAND!!! Repeat once or twice, yes, but seven or eigth times, give me a break!
-yet another example of the confusion-
Oh, so what I said has esculated to this in your mind, huh? Well you started out pretty gentlemanly, we'll see if you devulge into the same name calling session as the previous post. Yeah, I've done something of a lighter version of the same thing myself, but let's try to be a little saner about out thorns shall we? If your comments continue of this calibre I'll stop reading again (I'm reading asection and then commenting). I would hope what's said in this post will clarify and eliminate this sort of thing, but we'll see.
So you spoke to me as though some scumbag like me would buy for free, and yet you're now telling me that you have no disrepect for those that got it that way?
I realize now, or sort of half-realize, that if you can't fix the FR that there is no debate about preferring I/JG26 location to FR fixing, as silly as minute detail as I/JG26 location may be to many, it may be all that's on 'your' table, though you are something of a messenger for GG.
Well guys, you've taxed my brain a little here, and I do enjoy a little cranial activity every once in a while. Now if only these out-of-touch Dallas area software stores would decide to get a shipment of Civ III PTW, instead of just the GOTY edition, I'll be set (I was at a different store just yesterday, and found myself thinking upon seeing the GOTY: "Well Golly, it's only $10 more than the PTW edition", and then I remembered the gall of them doing what they were doing when both editions are readily available. It wasn't easy, but I wasn't going to be whored like that). I remember the same nonsense when Civ III first came out. All they had was this metal boxed 70-80 edition without the regular 45-50 dollar edition. That turned me off from Civ III for all but the last two weeks, as I finally bought it.
phew, that was long.
I'm playing it aganist the AI. Normally I know AI players are thrown out on the periphery for some reason, but in BTR given the time to play it, AI players would seem to be more prevalent. The industry says 70% of game players play 'nothing' but the AI. If that is so, I would think it to be more so with BTR, though it being a wargame might be just resplendent with PBEM, I don't know.Like Hard Sarge said - I have played 238 turns as the Axis in a PBEM game and not seen the freeze ray bug.
Good suggestion there. I do have the capability to ignore things once in a while -or- work around them, as I pointed out with the USAAF patrols attacking themselves. The problem is, either I intercept the fighter sweep head-on, in many instances, due to my having to try to figure out whether he's going for radar or my airfields, that it's not too rare the head-ons are the only alternative to letting him bomb the blazes out of them. The only possible workaround is to patrol in front of all airfields, but I'd never known much success with patrols, and in any case they as long as radar is up they're pretty unnecessary. I understance if radar is basically down that this is all I have, but the detection method is a lot less the problem as I see it, unless the patrols have some supernatural ability I've yet to witness. The way to try to interfere with a raid that is within miles of the base in question is still the same, as I can't veer off and then attack from the side. True, there are instances when you can do that, but it there are many when head-on is the only way.There are some ahistorical abilities in the game (as I have been guilty of doing), as the forum will indicate but the simple solution there is just not to do it.
HARD_SARGE:
Appreciate it H_S. But look at the reasoning, and again, it's just an example, but say someone squawked about I/JG26 placement, and JC took to that instead of FR. Well, how many squawked about I/JG26 placement? Consider too, how within a turn or two that unit can be moved, all completely within the game structure, but FR cannot be adjusted, and as I described just cannot be manuevered around in many instances. I thought somehow that JC was taking advice from GG in many instances and was doing the work himself. I also see now that while my complaint wasn't very prominent and others would harp more on dumb details that could easily be surmised in a turn or two, that one would seem more important than the other, however, the issue of one being more serious than the other is beyond question, whether one issue is more popular or not. Of course if one doesn't have it occur, or rarely, it may seem rather kooky to want it fixed, but believe me, if anyone was seeing it as much as I do there would be understanding. Hey, I'm a detail freak at times too, and if mine wasn't the seeming only one doing this I'd probably be on y'all's side too, it's just that things aren't like that.Hi Charles
well I what I meant, the Ray you talk about and the time you talk about, came on one of the last Patches that Gary did (which JC helped on) so it is a Exe thing, not a OB thing, for the most part what the forum does and is about is the OB, any Patch work would come from Gary himself
and not to put words into other peoples mouths, I think what JC means, is if every body else does not see it as a flaw or don't see it, then maybe it is not as big a deal as you make it out to be
If GG is the only one who can fix the FR, then it's certainly superfluous on my part to harp on it, only the way JC defends it you'd have thought he directly could fix it. I've been in the same boat as you guys a lot of times, where someone is treated like they're a trouble maker for a problem that most everybody acknowledges is there, it's just that they can't recreate it, or whatever. The rather daunting flaw in that argument is despite my being stupid in comparison to the guys who think they spend so much more time on BTR than I do, won't acknowledge that I might just know something about a detail I often see occur, more than they do about a detail they hardly see at all. I CAN recreate, and as I said have even sent a save game file on it. Now, what complicates this is that JC 'might' be able to see my reasoning, and if he was the one fixing it my approach isn't entirely without merit. The only problem as it turns out is that he has to convince someone who is onto other things about a game that died the the minute it hit the shelves. Sorry about all that. Here I was all the time thinking JC was doing this as a objective treatment of fixing the game and was doing so with ocassional console from GG, but it appears now that he's just OOB-wise; my apologies. I've never been on the side of the argument where I'm the kook having problems nobody else seems to have, but this does teach a lesson, that we ought not to treat people who have the problem we've seen, just with much less regularity, as though they're in this for nothing but to start trouble. I say if the problem is there and you have a clue then fix it. If you don't know how to fix, just say so, no big deal, I don't know how to fix it either, but it's the reasons I hear for not fixing something which are often pretty flimsy. What is it about techs that they can't say "I don't know". I work in IT, and I can tell you there's all kinds of idiots who think we're brainboxes and should know everything because we work with the equipment to one extent or the other. It's time to start saying "I don't know" a lot more. If someone outside of IT can get me fired because I admit I don't know, then surely the insane are running the asylum.
It's sad to hear the nobody has got deeper in BTR than what you report, but my case is that I've never gotten past the first month for frustration with the stupid FR (and all-seeing sweeps which imagined or not I see [but at least I can deal with that somewhat]). I know I played USAAF through at least 3-4 times, though it is a quicker play. I still have printouts at home of the loss reports in my dresser drawer, so much did I enjoy the subject of a grand treatment of the aerial conflict. In fact, that's probably why my somewhat inflammatory remarks are such as they are, simply because I'm so disappointed that out of all the games to screw up, BTR would be it. Seriously, most games I don't get on that games forum and talk abotu the screwups. JC's site and this Matrix one are the only game related ones I've ever been on. I don't even consider discussing Civ III on any of those sites, official or otherwise. I guess you'd say I expect more seriousness to gaming out of the wargame-related subject matter, though two games hardly evidences an obsession on my part.
On Civ III, they have a PTW version out, or at least they would if my dipstick area stores in the DFW area carried it (shipped 10/29). No, what they have is the GOTY (Game of the Year) edition which came out the same time, and sports the same full price as the regular Civ III, instead of the slightly discounted partial expansion that PTW is.
JC:
I'm not saying you did. I just happen to be the one who primarily has pushed this, in basically your own words. It's clear, if I shut up it'll never be fixed, but as I've shut up for it on the BTR forum, you'll excuse me if the frustration of all the the minuteness opressed forward while FR remains gets voiced every once in a while (please see my response to H-S above for slightly more detail. I'm sorry, I didn't know you you weren't doind the vast majority of the work, given how you're so quick to not say "Hey, I don't fix it and agree or disagree with what's important, I have to convince somebody else (GG) whose best interests are probably not with making BTR better (though it's not entirely devoid either)."Why would I single you out, over anyone else, to ignore or downplay a particular fault or finding?
This is something of a very revealing quote. which exemplifies what I was saying earlier. As far as strident rejction goes, putting all kinds of wild scenarios as to how I'm sort of cheater or something because I suggest if somebody were cheating by this method against the Allies it would be fixed. Now while my comment would indicate blame for Allied favoritism which may not be there, it isn't that unreasonable to assume that if somebody were exploiting it as a cheat against common BTR forum opponents that it would take one might say an almost lopsided importance to fix. I've seen gamey cheats in a number of instances drive even the kinds of units available in a game before. In my case, however, I hate that I'm FORCED TO CHEAT, in those instances I described to H_S above, there's just no way around it that I know of. If you're forced to cheat, you just stop playing, which is just what I did. So maybe you understand how jumping on accusing me of some gross Jack-the-Ripper cheating spree just is way off the mark. All this too, from a guy who doesn't even fix the problem I'm talking about.Point to me as well, at any time, that I've rejected this out of hand and/or "stridently"? I don't by nature tend to denigrate or dismiss out of hand anything concerning something that I've striven so hard to improve! Why blow off your bug, when I could have done just that, to so many other hidden, and to date, not observed by anyone bugs, as well?
I understand, also, now, that you don't fix FR, but to read that paragraph quoted again, it sure sounds like you're the guy who fixes it. I know, now, you really meant that you've fixed things in general (a lot of time put in), but in discussing FR and saying you fixed things together, without any of the "hey it's not my turf" sort of speech it's not that difficult to think you're the guy. I suppose you do it for some sort of ease of speech and think everyone is on the same page as you, but I make that mistake too on ocassion, and while being that way can be problematic, disclaiming one's self for every conceivable sound bite can be just as much a problem. The disclaiming one's self for every conceivable misunderstanding I see often on some of philosophy meanderings I've had, as some authors repeat the same premise, though it is necessary at times, so insistantly I'm yelling back at them GET ON WITH IT, I UNDERSTAND!!! Repeat once or twice, yes, but seven or eigth times, give me a break!
-yet another example of the confusion-
It sounds again as though you're capable of fixing it. I recall at one time you were thinking one of the new versions 'might have' fixed the FR. I suppose you thought GG might've sneaked it in and didn't tell you. I suppose that's the way it is with programming, sometimes OOB fixing can screw up exe things and sometimes OOB fixing can fix what are beleived to be exe things, which just leaves me in a malaise of confusion. At times you seem to think you've fixed it and at other times that only GG can do that, and all the while defend as though you do fix it. You'll excuse me if I this leaves me confused. On another note, not to drive too hard a point on it, but on of your earlier premises that it was virtually undetectable may be working against your being able to detect it again. I am fully qualified to find it, and if I can't find it within 24-48 hours, and usually within an hour, ir probably doesn't exist. Not that I'm a good troubleshooter by any means, it's just that if all the stories here are correct I'm a very special case on this one issue for soem reason, totally against my will, as I'd just as soon have the infrequency of it you guys report. If it did it only one-in-seven days of full English sweeps it wouldn't bug me, but I can get it to happen for probably every single day, if not for every other day. In any event, I did nail down that this doesn't occur with the original version and only occurs with head-on encounters on sweeps, but if your indirect non-fix works, great, but I understand how GG has a different perspective than either you or I might have on the matter, and is likely not something that's worth his time (and yes, if tomorrow I found this East Front game he's working on, on my doorstep, as opposed to the FR looked diligently looked into and still not being able to fix, then I'd be inclined to agree).In fact, due to recently being able to finally devote a lot of time to dealing with a myriad of hidden factors, that I've known about since day one, it is possible, that this bug may have already been fixed. I stress the 'possible' part, for after some thought, it is a possibility though not probable nor proveable, yet, that I caught this bug while going after something else, due to the similarity of factors that could cause this to occur. But as yet this has not been tested for.
For the issue at hand. The FR I know quite a lot about, only as everyone else I don't know how to fix. Let's leave aside whether anyone has any swell ideas or not, the result of not having the time or not knowing how is the same. My critique of the game is very valid is you want to play GE, and if you're not willing to go through all the Allied countless missions settings as many reviewers I've seen are not (not that I'm a reviewer by any means). The countless mission management of the Allies, whether you agree or not, at least has me very shy from it, while the GE side has the FR for me. I fail to to see how that's invalid. One side don't work properly, while the other is almost a tedious bore. I know you don't agree already, but it's nonetheless valid. Are you going to insist that since there's no great majority out there that has ny view of it, that it's therefore invalid? Sorry, that reasoning is beyond me. Someone wants my opinion, not what the perceived majority view is. If they want the majority view they can look around, but if FR springs up on them as it has on me, and they object to it as I have, they might just be pretty miffed that the majority treat it as though it don't exist. Sure, maybe that's something remote, but I don't ever recall myself asking for the "industry view" I get enough of that tripe from the ads and other sources. It can be helpful, don't misunderstand me, but specifics don't usually get tolerated or fixed by generalities.So by your own words, you really don't know what is going on, and your Non-Recommendation of BTR is not really valid, nor substantive?
So now the many members of my board are essentially buffoons obsessed only with trivia and trivial nonsense?
Oh, so what I said has esculated to this in your mind, huh? Well you started out pretty gentlemanly, we'll see if you devulge into the same name calling session as the previous post. Yeah, I've done something of a lighter version of the same thing myself, but let's try to be a little saner about out thorns shall we? If your comments continue of this calibre I'll stop reading again (I'm reading asection and then commenting). I would hope what's said in this post will clarify and eliminate this sort of thing, but we'll see.
Come on JC, you're all over the place with this. You know, you were somind-numbingly wrong on your prediction, that this was one of only two games in my entire life (the other being USAAF similarly enough) that I bought TWICE. USAAF was because I had switched from Atari to Apple. BTR because I wanted the game so bad it was the first pre-order I had ever done. Turns out the pre-order was more like delay-order, since the thing was on the shelvs at least a full week before it arrived. When I first saw it in the store I asked them if I could cancel my order, and they said sure as they hadn't even received them yet or something. I then purchased from the shelf, only to have it arrive via the mail a week or two afterwards. So, you see, this FR thing really tears at me. You have no idea how increased frequency of it happening makes all the difference in the world.Well, that I applaud (as did I)- though I don't fault those who received it for free- that was TS' doing. If it helps, I'll buy it back from you... just so there are no hard feelings and all...
So you spoke to me as though some scumbag like me would buy for free, and yet you're now telling me that you have no disrepect for those that got it that way?
I understand, as I mentioned earlier on the thread how I'd engaged, in my belief, more lightly in the same manner. Oh, how I really could've gone off, but it wouldn't have been any the more coherent. There's just a tiem and place where thinking out possible scenarios and making them as what that person does/thinks crosses a fine line and then it's pointless to debate any longer as it just gets too unwieldly.Maybe it's the verbiage you use, that set me off; and the timeline seems a bit off, as to when this was reported... nonetheless, I admit, after your clarification, that I mis/mal understood your statement. It's just that overall, people don't appreciate being called clueless or demeaned in any fashion...
I think you misunderstand me here. By detail fanaticism I was referring to fixing things like the location of I/JG26 (as a fictional example) for the first turn, as opposed to fixing something that's cropped up on the game as a whole. You seem to think I was referring to the interceptor speed increase as detail fanaticism gone bad, but no, I would regard the increase on a greater scale of importance than even my sainted FR, as if the GE aircraft can basically noy intercept, I don't think FR can even occur. Much like if the project was just toasted from the start, FR would not occurActually no, that was my brain child 100%, and due solely to the physical mechanics of it being incorrect, versus something clamored for or brought up by the cogniscenti! Never once would or could this have ever been mentioned in a post, for this type of thing was totally unascertainable, deduceable, or discernible by the player at that time.
Additionally, I really don't see one having to be overly fanatical about historical detail to realize that, interceptor's don't merrily chase their target at cruise speed!
I realize now, or sort of half-realize, that if you can't fix the FR that there is no debate about preferring I/JG26 location to FR fixing, as silly as minute detail as I/JG26 location may be to many, it may be all that's on 'your' table, though you are something of a messenger for GG.Naw, I wouldn't go as far as to call a problem my own, that would only play to the idea that I'm the only one with it, further alienating me. I know that's not what you had in mind, but sometimes immediate remedies bring suffering in the long haul. As far as PBEM goes, perhaps here you will see another problem with me, and as I somewhat got on something of a political platform earlier, you will find that I never play against humans. I'm strictly AI. As dumb as AI may be at times, I can find a way to make it challenging, and not engaging in being "with-a-FR-here-and-an-FR-there,-here-an-FR-there-an-Fr,-everywhere-an-FR-FR. Ol-C22-had-a-cheat-ee-eye-ee-eye-oh. The thing is, even if I were an PBEM fanatic, I sure wouldn't be one with BTR. If one could play it cooperatively, that would be the only hope for multiple human play in my mind, as H_S even described he doesn't know anyone to go past whatever he said it was. Sometimes the drudgery is just too much and people are less tolerant of playing other humans than of the AI; this much I know. Back in the day, I had actually played USAAF with someone else, via the same computer, but we were playing cooperatively as well. As good of friends as we were, we only had to play 2-4 other games en toto to find that we couldn't stand doing it against each other (pinball at the arcade being the exception).Nor I of you! And just in case, if you possibly may have gotten the wrong impression- you are always welcome at the Forum; and more than welcome to start up a thread devoted solely to the "Charles FR" bug, and beat on my head every day to try to get it fixed. Meanwhile, you could probably find a PBEM player over there, who I guarantee you, won't cheat or use the CFR thingie.
Well guys, you've taxed my brain a little here, and I do enjoy a little cranial activity every once in a while. Now if only these out-of-touch Dallas area software stores would decide to get a shipment of Civ III PTW, instead of just the GOTY edition, I'll be set (I was at a different store just yesterday, and found myself thinking upon seeing the GOTY: "Well Golly, it's only $10 more than the PTW edition", and then I remembered the gall of them doing what they were doing when both editions are readily available. It wasn't easy, but I wasn't going to be whored like that). I remember the same nonsense when Civ III first came out. All they had was this metal boxed 70-80 edition without the regular 45-50 dollar edition. That turned me off from Civ III for all but the last two weeks, as I finally bought it.
phew, that was long.
He is also more knowledgeable about the topic than I am so I get a bonus there. Some of the turns are long, playing either side if you micromanage as much as I do. Some busy turns have taken me over 5 hours on occasion but it was time well spent with a huge satisfaction factor when I felt I did it right - such as shooting down a hundred night bombers