Attention Matrix Staff: Aircraft Upgrades

[ZOOMIE1980]

ORIGINAL: joliverlay

Earlier in the post you asked for a proposal. Here it is.

Allow players to change aircraft types at will. This should be possible. If the code will allow it then add any of the following "extra" constraints.

1. Army must us Army and Navy must use Navy
2. Fighter must exchange for fighters, etc.
3. Same number of engines (2 engine for 2 engine)
4. Deduct experience for changing aircraft types outside of criteria 2 or 3.
5. Require discovery of preeceding aircraft types prior to secondary types.
6. Require PPs to change aircraft types.
7. Increase production points required to produce advance aircraft.
8. Use geometric or exponential or other increasing costs for larger numbers of advance aircraft.
9. Randomly (or not) make some designs very hard to produce.
10. Make it an OPTION
11. APPLY ONLY TO JAPANESE

Most of these ideas have already been used in either USAAF, BTR, BOB, or Pac War.

etc.

OK NOW YOU HAVE A PROPOSAL

Before you guys claim it could not happen, the Luftwaffe routinely changed back and forth from ME-109s to FW-190s based on available aircraft. Does anybody belive that Japanese units did not? I have read that old aircraft production (Nates) was restarted to produce cheaper Kamakazi aircraft and that some units downgraded for this reason.

OK....if the answer is No, then I have another proposal. IMPROVE THE AI!

Thanks.

And that is about as straight forward a proposal as it gets. And has been made REPEATEDLY in this thread! I fail to see where Frag comes off claiming people have no ideas. What does he want? A completely coded application block complete with UML diagrams?

My suggestion, since the complainers seem to center on wanting the BTR system.

Put the BTR system in WitP. The same guy designed and coded both, right?

[Caltone]

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Again Zoomie, lots of typing and no answer ... one day you'll read one of my posts ... Let me make it simple:

"Complaint: Aircraft/Research semi-hardcoded, does not allow player flexibility as requested"

"Solution: <blank>

Is that so tough for you to grasp? No one cares about your coding skills. No one cares about your "I rewrote the world while GG slept" stories. Fill in the <blank> with something that makes sense AND is historically realistic.

Give me the game source code so I can make an informed suggestion.

Lets see they spent several years developing this game, they are currently selling it, they are currently supporting it and you want the source code?

That has got to be one of the most ridiculous things you've ever said. If it was a joke, it didn't come across too well.

Why do you need to source code to suggest options? Suggest your solution, let others do the same, let those get presented to 2by3 and let them decide if they can/will do it.

As Frag said, why is that so hard?

FWIW, I like the system as is, if it is changed, then it should absolutely be a toggle. And don't forget, the views in this forum, and this thread, represent a very small part of the WitP audience.

[Sultanofsham]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag



It's funny how when the chips are down and you ask them complaining to offer up something better, they clam up.

Your so full of crap its not funny. This was posted what, 5 pages ago. Maybe I should dig through the rest of the ideas posted while you were demagoging the thread as being a post for players wanting F18's.

1. Auto upgrade paths stay the same and are free.

2. You can spend a small amount of PP to bring in an aircraft thats in the squads upgrade path early or switching to a past aircraft type.

3. You can spend a larger amount of PP to bring in an aircraft thats not in the upgrade path.

4. Aircraft have to be of the same class. Fighter to fighter, Bomber to bomber, and so on.

5. No using Army aircraft with Navy aircraft (unless it happend durring the war) or any other cross service jumping.

6. Group takes an exp hit for the switch.

7. Both sides should have this option.

8. It should be an option button set at the start of the game along with the ahistoric sub buttons. That way if ya want it then you have it and if ya dont then you never need to mess with it.

[Mr.Frag]

And that is about as straight forward a proposal as it gets. And has been made REPEATEDLY in this thread! I fail to see where Frag comes off claiming people have no ideas. What does he want? A completely coded application block complete with UML diagrams?

Can you STOP THINKING CODE long enough to READ a post???

Think it is 1941. You are in charge of Japan's aircraft production. You have finite abilities to come up with aircraft for two different services who have different requirements. You have very real limits as to what you can come up with based on available technology. What would your system look like?

Forget CODE!!! Think Reality & Concept.

[Banquet]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag
Fill in the <blank> with something that makes sense AND is historically realistic.

Should that be historically binding?

The <blank>, for me, is research. Get rid of it. It's almost pointless anyway. Give us aircraft production based on preset entry dates and let us place our aircraft where we need them.

Where's the gripe? The system is so obviously flawed..

[ZOOMIE1980]

Lets see they spent several years developing this game, they are currently selling it, they are currently supporting it and you want the source code?
That has got to be one of the most ridiculous things you've ever said. If it was a joke, it didn't come across too well.

Lets see, we have a guy wanting detailed, realistic, workable design solution recommendations. One little problem there. Guess what that is?

Why do you need to source code to suggest options? Suggest your solution, let others do the same, let those get presented to 2by3 and let them decide if they can/will do it.
As Frag said, why is that so hard?

Why waste time suggesting options that are almost alway REJECTED as being "fundemental design changes" and as such, it is not economical to do? How are we supposed to KNOW what involves or does not involve "fundemental re-design" issues if we are not privy to those design?

So back at you, genius. What is so hard about THAT concept???

FWIW, I like the system as is, if it is changed, then it should absolutely be a toggle. And don't forget, the views in this forum, and this thread, represent a very small part of the WitP audience.

And a LOT of the "smart" part, however the hell you define that, hates this design.... I honestly don't care that way one way or the other. It is the tone, as usaul, Frag takes with posters wanting changes that don't mesh with his VIEW and his constant demanding of nonsensical "solutions" that require a great deal more knowledge of the internals than ANY of us have access to.

[Sultanofsham]

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

And that is about as straight forward a proposal as it gets. And has been made REPEATEDLY in this thread! I fail to see where Frag comes off claiming people have no ideas.

Because he cant come up with an good argument against it. Hes just running a moving goalpost defense against something he doesnt want in the game.

[2ndACR]

Mine would look just like BTR or the one Nick posted on page 18. I even agreed to it.

IJA-IJA
fighter-fighter
IJN-IJN

up or down makes no difference to me.

[ZOOMIE1980]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

And that is about as straight forward a proposal as it gets. And has been made REPEATEDLY in this thread! I fail to see where Frag comes off claiming people have no ideas. What does he want? A completely coded application block complete with UML diagrams?

Can you STOP THINKING CODE long enough to READ a post???

Think it is 1941. You are in charge of Japan's aircraft production. You have finite abilities to come up with aircraft for two different services who have different requirements. You have very real limits as to what you can come up with based on available technology. What would your system look like?

Forget CODE!!! Think Reality & Concept.

Read the above. That is all VERY simple and VERY straight forward. Go play BTR. That's what's wanted by those that want this change.

[ZOOMIE1980]

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

Mine would look just like BTR or the one Nick posted on page 18. I even agreed to it.

IJA-IJA
fighter-fighter
IJN-IJN

up or down makes no difference to me.

Frag can't seem to read for comprehension when the subject matter is a change he philosophically disagrees with.

I think it is high time Mike Wood or someone of authority come on and give a thumbs up or a thump down. Then either Frag can go find another game or the BTR fanatics can go find another game.....

[Sultanofsham]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

So, GG and Co. have the code to the BTR research and ugrade system. Want a suggestiong that your team has actual stuff to use.....OK. Incorporate the BTR research and upgrade solution into WitP. How's that?

And this models Japan's abilities how? [8|]

How about it models the real life ability of a CinC of an airforce to say I want you to use those planes over there or didnt god include that ability in the Japanese? [8|]

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

If you have no interest in technical solution ideas, don't bother to read the posts... If Matrix had a public "Developers" forum Capt Cruft, myself, and some others would likely be there rather than here, for sure....

All i've seen you do is talk. Gary and Mike walk the walk. You asked for the source code, which if you were the great designer you say you are, you would know that such a request is unreasonable and is not something that is done on the fly to persons outside of the employ of the company in question. You then asked me why were formulae posted in some of the old SSI 8bit games but not now. I commented. It was not meant to be an insult but a simple statement of fact though admitedly you do provide a convienient example nor have you denied on other threads that you bash Gary pretty hard in your infinite wisdom. My thoughts may be wrong. You are free to take em or leave em.

The Internet is indeed a wonderful font for the exchange of ideas. But every side has it's dark cloud. That dark cloud is that every would be programmer/designer/etc etc comes out of the woodwork with their idea on how things should be.

Given all that and the time contraints involved....i can understand how Mike and Gary would not have time to wax poetic on why they do what they do, nor do i fault them if they abstain. I think Matrix and 2b3's record for allowing the input of creative ideas and adjustments speaks for itself. But everyone isn't going to get everything they want.

[Mr.Frag]

Read the above. That is all VERY simple and VERY straight forward. Go play BTR. That's what's wanted by those that want this change.

What does Gemany's well funded well engineered design abilities have to do with Japan's primative reality of what they could make?

As far as the above post ... look very closely at #5

5. No using Army aircraft with Navy aircraft (unless it happend durring the war) or any other cross service jumping.

That is what is required ... produce the legitimate rules that would govern this and keep it historically legitimate.

The rest of the list has nothing to do with *history*, it is all about the game interface ... stop thinking interface and start thinking history.

What are the *rules* that must be put in place to govern the *game* to make it historically accurate or at least historically plausable so we are not reducing history's reality to widget processing that has nothing at all to do with history. Why did Japan not retool for modern aircraft? What stopped them? Rubber shortages? Aluminum? Steel? Electronic? What is historically reasonable to have to capture the proper feel of Japan compared to the Allied "oh, we'll just build a brand new factory and make those too"

[Sultanofsham]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

well, again, you seem bent on the idea, that only top of the line fighters, Uber fighters are going to be built and used, and place in the front lines

If you are free to swap them anytime you want, who would build anything else?

You can look at the aircraft stats for both sides and answer that for yourself. Its not hard to see why if you'd quit with the everyone wants the bestest of the mostest garbage.

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag
Seriously, this is an answer I really want to hear.

If you had the choice of flipping out your Nates for Tonies when the game starts you would not do it?

It depends on what Im doing at the time and what my plans are. The newest plane isnt aways the best for the job at hand.

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag
Perhaps if I understood the logic you guys are trying to present, I might be on your side...

Given your demogogary and out right mis statements on what we're ask for and why I doubt you'll ever be on "our" side nor do I care (not going to speak for the others).

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag
Right now all I see is people want to be able to replace aircraft with other aircraft but no one is talking about any form of realistic controls to govern it's use. Thats a quarter of a solution ... try proposing a *whole* solution and you'll probably find that I am not against it at all.

Bull. People have offered "whole" solutions which you havnt said a word about while you kept on claming all we want is a force of the best type of plane.

[2ndACR]

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

And that is about as straight forward a proposal as it gets. And has been made REPEATEDLY in this thread! I fail to see where Frag comes off claiming people have no ideas. What does he want? A completely coded application block complete with UML diagrams?

Can you STOP THINKING CODE long enough to READ a post???

Think it is 1941. You are in charge of Japan's aircraft production. You have finite abilities to come up with aircraft for two different services who have different requirements. You have very real limits as to what you can come up with based on available technology. What would your system look like?

Forget CODE!!! Think Reality & Concept.

Read the above. That is all VERY simple and VERY straight forward. Go play BTR. That's what's wanted by those that want this change.

Not sure what you mean? All i want is the ability to use the tools given to me to do better in the game than in history. I do have BTR. Some of these arguments are becoming counter productive.

My MAIN complaint is dead end upgrade paths. PERIOD. IJA-IJN planes I do not want.
Bomber to fighter I do not want. Two engine fighter has to stay a 2 engine fighter etc.
Dive bomber stays a dive bomber. PERIOD.

That is what US BTR TYPES want. PERIOD. Night fighter stays a night fighter. Period.

We DO NOT WANT DEAD END paths.

[Mr.Frag]

Bull. People have offered "whole" solutions which you havnt said a word about while you kept on claming all we want is a force of the best type of plane.

Nope, not a single solution in this thread that addresses historic controls. Not one.

The closest that anything comes is charging PP for it. Thats a minor counter weight to slow it down.

It does not address whether Japan could historically produce the aircraft in the first place.

Sorry, I can't find my Settlers to send them out of harvest more gold so I can buy better aircraft ... oops, wrong game.

[moses]

Wow, havn't read the whole thread so sorry if I repeat somthing. This isn't that big of an issue with me since I don't fiddle with production to much after it was suggested that to much changing would wreck the economy. The following seems clear to me however:

1) A decision was made to allow players to control production. Historical arguments could be made against this decision. The issues of army/navy rivalry, domestic and political issues, difficulties dealing with the Japanese industry leaders, and the desire to prevent players from gaining to much from hindsight all come to mind. However these are all reasons not to give players control of production. This decision has already been made. Production is in the hands of the players.

2) Production decisions and game events may lead to mismatches between the aircraft available in the pool and the squadren types currently in use. Now historically there is no doubt about what will happen. The Army and Navy may fight about who gets what aircraft but one thing is almost certain. They will go somewhere. Either new squadrens will be created or current squadrens will upgrade to the available aircraft. Therefore players should be able to upgrade aircraft as they wish.

3) If it is desired to restrict the extent to which a player can change his air fleet, then this should be done at the level of production. So for example say you want to require players to produce Oscars for whatever historical reason. It would then make since to not allow a player to change the production of Oscar's to Zero's or to change the production of aircraft which upgrade to Oscars to anything else. However once you have allowed him to change all of his production it makes no sence for you then to restrict the ability to use these aircraft.

4) To summarize: restrictions on production changes can possibly be justified. Not allowing a player to use the aircraft that he has been allowed to produce cannot.

[Sultanofsham]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Read the above. That is all VERY simple and VERY straight forward. Go play BTR. That's what's wanted by those that want this change.

What does Gemany's well funded well engineered design abilities have to do with Japan's primative reality of what they could make?

He is talking about the ability to upgrade and downgrade. Quit trying to draw this into something else its not.

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

5. No using Army aircraft with Navy aircraft (unless it happend durring the war) or any other cross service jumping.

That is what is required ... produce the legitimate rules that would govern this and keep it historically legitimate.

The rest of the list has nothing to do with *history*, it is all about the game interface ... stop thinking interface and start thinking history.

Start thinking history??? Yeah it can go on a toggel next to the non historical Sub settings, thenon historical initial set ups and any other non historical thing they want to add. It'll fit in with my ability to non historically bomb something other than Pearl at the start ofthe game, non historically sack dug out Doug or anyone else I want to, or non historically set up bases where there were none durring WW2.

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag
What are the *rules* that must be put in place to govern the *game* to make it historically accurate or at least historically plausable so we are not reducing history's reality to widget processing that has nothing at all to do with history. Why did Japan not retool for modern aircraft? What stopped them? Rubber shortages? Aluminum? Steel? Electronic? What is historically reasonable to have to capture the proper feel of Japan compared to the Allied "oh, we'll just build a brand new factory and make those too"

Really what did rubber shortages, aluminum shortages, or shortages of anything else have to do with the CnC saying"I have 100 <insert plane here> in the pool, I want your sqaud to draw 24 of the things and fly them"? Come on what does it have to do with it?

[8|] Again with a bunch of garbage that has nothing to do with being able to have a choice of which aircraft a group is equiped with. You want to stick to the matter at hand and post your gripes with the production and research in a thread that has something to do with it please?

[Sultanofsham]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Nope, not a single solution in this thread that addresses historic controls. Not one.

Yep people have offered a whole solution to what the whole point of the thread is. Just because you dont like the idea and have tossed a bunch of other garbage that doesnt have anything to do with choosing what aircraft a squad can use doesnt make it any less true.

You want to deal with imperfections in the production and research model of the game then do it but quit trying to tie it to something else it has nothing to due with.

[Sultanofsham]

ORIGINAL: moses

Wow, havn't read the whole thread so sorry if I repeat somthing. This isn't that big of an issue with me since I don't fiddle with production to much after it was suggested that to much changing would wreck the economy. The following seems clear to me however:

1) A decision was made to allow players to control production. Historical arguments could be made against this decision. The issues of army/navy rivalry, domestic and political issues, difficulties dealing with the Japanese industry leaders, and the desire to prevent players from gaining to much from hindsight all come to mind. However these are all reasons not to give players control of production. This decision has already been made. Production is in the hands of the players.

2) Production decisions and game events may lead to mismatches between the aircraft available in the pool and the squadren types currently in use. Now historically there is no doubt about what will happen. The Army and Navy may fight about who gets what aircraft but one thing is almost certain. They will go somewhere. Either new squadrens will be created or current squadrens will upgrade to the available aircraft. Therefore players should be able to upgrade aircraft as they wish.

3) If it is desired to restrict the extent to which a player can change his air fleet, then this should be done at the level of production. So for example say you want to require players to produce Oscars for whatever historical reason. It would then make since to not allow a player to change the production of Oscar's to Zero's or to change the production of aircraft which upgrade to Oscars to anything else. However once you have allowed him to change all of his production it makes no sence for you then to restrict the ability to use these aircraft.

4) To summarize: restrictions on production changes can possibly be justified. Not allowing a player to use the aircraft that he has been allowed to produce cannot.

Well put.