Attention Matrix Staff: Aircraft Upgrades

[Caltone]

ORIGINAL: 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.

Excellent post Nik. I noticed Zoom didn't or wouldn't respond either. How many game forums have we seen hit by jackals trying to tell the designers HOW they should make their game. Heck here, the implication is HOW they should code thier game. It irritates me to no end but I also find it somewhat amusing.

I count 10 people or so in this thread calling the system "broken" "show stopper" "ill conceived" etc. I understand the design, I like the design, and I want it to stay like it is. Let them fix the bugs and give us the multitude of enhancements they always do and most of us will only get happier. With one exception, I sympathize with those upset over this part of the game. You certainly have a right to your opinion and I'm sorry if this renders the game unplayable for you.

[ZOOMIE1980]

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.

I have probably written and designed as much software in my day as either of those two. And done so, in quite likely a hell of a lot more disciplines, industries, platforms, and programming languages, than they have. I have walked plenty of walks to the degree I have made a pretty good living doing it. And your comment was indeed intended to be a total insult. If you think otherwise you nothing more than liar and you know it.

I bash Gary sometimes, because in all the hero worship that goes on around this Matrix organization and the posters that post here, sometimes developers like him NEED bashing from someone. If not him, directly, then his groupie worshipers who can see no fault no matter what. And that doesn't just come from me. That comes from people over the past 20 years that have worked and dealt with him as well. I also sing the man's praises in what he does well. I am, if nothing else, fair and balanced. We all have professional deficiencies, so does he. And if given the chance, he'd very likely enumerate those.

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.

Well there's your problem right there. I view that as a MAJOR PLUS about forums like this. Thank God, they do. We'd still be back in the DOS days of game development..... Oh, I forgot, the code is essentially just that.... Oh well.....

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.

When I post techie design thoughts I never expect them to respond. I don't expect them to rewrite WitP using an OO design. But I do expect that somewhere along the line, someone that matters and can understand the points, reads it, and pockets it away as a possible future idea. And if that happens, then those kinds of posts have served their purpose. what YOU think about them is totally IRRELEVANT.

[ZOOMIE1980]

ORIGINAL: 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.

There's plenty of Settlers. We call them aircraft production factories devoted to research.... the fact you have yet to seem to think you have seen no solutions is not surprising in the least. This thread is FULL of them. Of course you have to be able to read and comprehend to see that...

[joliverlay]

Mr. Frag:

I do not feel you responed to my post listing specific ideas. I'll try again with some details. I'm starting with the simple idea that says let players change aircraft at will. I start here not because it is historical, but because I belive it could be implemented with very little change in the computer code. I then make suggestions to add layers of realism with the idea of accepting those that can easily be coded. I'll try again with more detail. The added constraints after the baisc anything goes is as follows:

1. Change aircraft only within services. This should be historically acceptable.
2. Change aircraft only within same type. Ditto on history.
3. Change aircraft only with same number of engines. Ditto on history.
4. Allow unlimited downgrades to older types. Ditto on history
5. Decrease the number of units produced by a very large factor for more advance planes. 5 Nates = 4 Oscars = 3 Tonys = 2 Franks = 1 uber weapon. I expect the effect here would not be massive use of uber planes. What would happen is a shift towards planes with a good cost performance ratio. This feals historical. Japan could have obted to make fewer planes of higher quaility. The limiting factor was a DESIRE no have large numbers rather than higher quality. This COULD have been changed.
6. Decrease the number of planes produced per level of industry by a second factor that makes 100 units more than 10 times more costly than 10 units. This encourages production of several general lines of aircraft.

This is similar in EFFECT to what happens in BTR. As german I can't build all ME-262s because they are so expensive, so I build fewer. In fact I build LOADs of FW-190As because of their PRICE to PERFROMANCE ratio. Same for Japanese. I agree the could not have made all UBER PLANES, but they could have made a few and also shifted a fair amount of Oscar production to another mode like say Tony.

Finally, if you dont like that do it this way. Allow player to change squadrons with some set of rules, but limit changes as follows. First squadron to use non-historical aircraft pays 100 pps. Second squadron pays 200. Third squadron pays 400. Fourth 800 etc.

Finally. The last option is to control aircraft product more as BTR does. Require different versions of the engines for advanced designes, and make the more advanced engines very very hard to build. You can choose to do it, but you get very few planes. Also, you have to retool engines as well as airframes. This leads to NO ENGINE PRODUCTION. Want to make it real fun. Make the advanced engines cost more to repair, retool, or simply require more heavy industry for each.

There are many, many ways to give some flexability and yet make the Japanese sacrifice the same things they would have in real life. Regardless of what you say, I have not heard anyone say why the Japanese could not have changed 1, 2, 3 or perhaps 4 additional oscar squadrons to some other type.

Is this specific and historical enough?

Thank you for your attention.

[ZOOMIE1980]

Excellent post Nik. I noticed Zoom didn't or wouldn't respond either. How many game forums have we seen hit by jackals trying to tell the designers HOW they should make their game. Heck here, the implication is HOW they should code thier game. It irritates me to no end but I also find it somewhat amusing.

Try getting some real WORK done? Then getting something eat, going to the store to get replace and empty print cartridge....you know....life.

It doesn't take a software professional to see some fundemental flaws in a basic design decision that make no logical sense. Such as and aircraft deployment system that is supported by a contradictory aircraft production system. So poorly put together that we a 20 page thread devoted to it. Now if that makes me a "Jackal", fine, I like jackals. Crafty little things...

I count 10 people or so in this thread calling the system "broken" "show stopper" "ill conceived" etc. I understand the design, I like the design, and I want it to stay like it is. Let them fix the bugs and give us the multitude of enhancements they always do and most of us will only get happier. With one exception, I sympathize with those upset over this part of the game. You certainly have a right to your opinion and I'm sorry if this renders the game unplayable for you.

Great, so YOU like it. BFD. I'm very glad you "understand" and like a deployment design that has nothing to do with the supporting production system design. Guess you don't make a living designing software....

I don't really care which way they come down on this thing, if they ever do. But leaving it the way it is is probably not going to down with side very well.... They either give players full control over production and deployment or they don't. One way or the other. But NOT halfway down the middle...... That's why we are now in our 20th page here.

[tsimmonds]

what YOU think about them is totally IRRELEVANT.

Why do you have to drag me into this thread again?[;)]

Since I am here, My $0.03: the only post in this whole thread that is irrefutable is this one:

Original: Warspite
The argument that to change it would make it unhistorical is wrong because its not historical now. Here is a list of fighters and the Sentais that used them. Bold are sentais that upgraded from Nates and Red from Hayabusas.

Nate equipped Sentais = 1, 4, 9, 11, 13, 18, 21, 24, 33, 50, 54, 59, 63, 64, 70, 77, 78, 85, 87, 144, 246.
Hayabusa equipped Sentais = 1, 11, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 30, 31, 33, 48, 50, 54, 59, 63, 64, 65, 71, 72, 73, 77, 101, 102, 103, 104, 112, 203, 204, 248.

Shoki equipped Sentais = 9, 22, 29, 47, 85, 87, 246.
Hien equipped Sentais = 17, 18, 19, 23, 26, 28, 37, 55, 56, 59, 65, 68, 78, 105, 244
Hayate equipped Sentais = 1, 11, 13, 14, 20, 22, 25, 29, 47, 50, 51, 52, 64, 71, 72, 73, 85, 101, 102, 103, 104, 111, 112, 200, 246.
Only 2 Sentais operated the Randy

Okay it didn't keep my colours or bold face from my word document I created, nor allow me to attach it, so here is what you have left over after the upgrades:

Nate equipped Sentais = 4, 70, 78, 144.
Hayabusa equipped Sentais = 21, 24, 30, 31, 33, 48, 54, 63, 77, 203, 204.

We can see that the upgrade paths in the game are meaningless anyway, as there are no where near 34 groups of Hayabusas in WW2 nor anything like 12 Ki-102, and as we can see most surviving Sentais were equiped with the Frank. Its wrong now so whats the deal with letting us use what we build.

All the rest ranges from debatable to nonsense, but if these sentais were actually equipped with these aircraft during the war, why in the world can we not upgrade them like this in the game?

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980


I have probably written and designed as much software in my day as either of those two. And done so, in quite likely a hell of a lot more disciplines, industries, platforms, and programming languages, than they have. I have walked plenty of walks to the degree I have made a pretty good living doing it. And your comment was indeed intended to be a total insult. If you think otherwise you nothing more than liar and you know it.

Prove it. Where's your superior wargaming design. We are all still waiting.

I bash Gary sometimes, because in all the hero worship that goes on around this Matrix organization and the posters that post here, sometimes developers like him NEED bashing from someone. If not him, directly, then his groupie worshipers who can see no fault no matter what. And that doesn't just come from me. That comes from people over the past 20 years that have worked and dealt with him as well. I also sing the man's praises in what he does well. I am, if nothing else, fair and balanced. We all have professional deficiencies, so does he. And if given the chance, he'd very likely enumerate those.

Though the term has been much abused here......"straw man" I have seen little evidence of hero worship on this board....certainly not on this thread. This is simply an excuse for someone like yourself to make alot of noise without having to put your money where your mouth is

Well there's your problem right there. I view that as a MAJOR PLUS about forums like this. Thank God, they do. We'd still be back in the DOS days of game development..... Oh, I forgot, the code is essentially just that.... Oh well.....

We are again, still waiting for your superior approach. Put up.......or shut up.

When I post techie design thoughts I never expect them to respond.

I agree with you here. Were i them, i wouldn't respond either. [:)]

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Caltone


Excellent post Nik. I noticed Zoom didn't or wouldn't respond either. How many game forums have we seen hit by jackals trying to tell the designers HOW they should make their game. Heck here, the implication is HOW they should code thier game. It irritates me to no end but I also find it somewhat amusing.

I count 10 people or so in this thread calling the system "broken" "show stopper" "ill conceived" etc. I understand the design, I like the design, and I want it to stay like it is. Let them fix the bugs and give us the multitude of enhancements they always do and most of us will only get happier. With one exception, I sympathize with those upset over this part of the game. You certainly have a right to your opinion and I'm sorry if this renders the game unplayable for you.

thx. I dont have a problem with constructive critisism or the putting forth of new ideas.....lord knows i've put forward enough myself. It does get a little annoying when an item of controversey is used as a vehicle for personal promotion.

[Caltone]

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

Excellent post Nik. I noticed Zoom didn't or wouldn't respond either. How many game forums have we seen hit by jackals trying to tell the designers HOW they should make their game. Heck here, the implication is HOW they should code thier game. It irritates me to no end but I also find it somewhat amusing.

Try getting some real WORK done? Then getting something eat, going to the store to get replace and empty print cartridge....you know....life.

It doesn't take a software professional to see some fundemental flaws in a basic design decision that make no logical sense. Such as and aircraft deployment system that is supported by a contradictory aircraft production system. So poorly put together that we a 20 page thread devoted to it. Now if that makes me a "Jackal", fine, I like jackals. Crafty little things...

I count 10 people or so in this thread calling the system "broken" "show stopper" "ill conceived" etc. I understand the design, I like the design, and I want it to stay like it is. Let them fix the bugs and give us the multitude of enhancements they always do and most of us will only get happier. With one exception, I sympathize with those upset over this part of the game. You certainly have a right to your opinion and I'm sorry if this renders the game unplayable for you.

Great, so YOU like it. BFD. I'm very glad you "understand" and like a deployment design that has nothing to do with the supporting production system design. Guess you don't make a living designing software....

I don't really care which way they come down on this thing, if they ever do. But leaving it the way it is is probably not going to down with side very well.... They either give players full control over production and deployment or they don't. One way or the other. But NOT halfway down the middle...... That's why we are now in our 20th page here.

Zoom if nothing else, you never cease to amaze. Might we ask ourselves that if we constantly have to remind everyone how "double super duper utmost" overqualified we are, then maybe we have some issues outside of discussing game mechanics?

Just some food for thought [:-]

[ZOOMIE1980]

Prove it. Where's your superior wargaming design. We are all still waiting.

Wargame designs or not, I have designed and written more software in more disciplines over the past 25 years than probably all the Matrix programmers COMBINED. I've design and written major components for textile manufacturing, accounting, inventory control, travel industry reservations, SS7, TCAP, INAP telephony protocols, financial settlement systems (if you use an ATM card you are excercising code I have either designed or written), if you fly a commercial airline the weather reports your pilots are using on your flight are provided by an FAA system I designed the database for, if you have health insurance, the financial transaction software probably contains routines I have either written or designed. I am fluent in COBAL, Fortran, C, C++, Pascal, TAL, Java and scripting languages like Python, Perl, and Visual Basic. I am an MCSE, and a certiified Oracle DBA. I know HTML, and XML like the back of my hand. Is that enough for you??? When it comes to software design and application programming, I basically been there, done that. And that INCLUDES battle simulations.

Though the term has been much abused here......"straw man" I have seen little evidence of hero worship on this board....certainly not on this thread. This is simply an excuse for someone like yourself to make alot of noise without having to put your money where your mouth is

You can start with the groupie/worship thread still on page one and those assinie girlie bowing emoticons that look like more like a pack of teenage girls on a figure skating fan forum. As for my "money". Well my money is essentially my TIME. And I have devoted many years to the development of my own personally support libraries to begin launching many of my ideas. And I do intend to start investing money within the next two years in the venture. When WitP counting UV dev time took three dedicated programers and a dozen or more support folks over five years to get out the door well, one man working alone, just might take a while to produce a primative prototype.

But rest ABSOLUTELY ASSURED, Object oriented design coupled with client server architectures are the FUTURE of turn based wargaming. And those that don't get that are doomed to eventual FAILURE. Take that to the BANK. Same for any Matrix personnel following this or any of their partners. It is ONLY viable architecture and design paradigm that can take the genre to its next level.

We are again, still waiting for your superior approach. Put up.......or shut up.

Well then, you have no more capability to read for comprehension than Frag when he gets locked up in his philopsophies. I have expressed in DETAIL my design ideas on here and elsewhere, REPEATEDLY. I guess they are beyond you intellectual level, it seems. Since you cannot even remember anything about them.

I agree with you here. Were i them, i wouldn't respond either. [:)]

Ostriches are really UGLY birds. Keep that head in the sand, Nikki baby.

[Caltone]

In the words of the late great Ronald Reagan;

There you go again

Dude you really don't need to keep telling us how great you are, we're never going to believe it. Perhaps some sessions in front of the mirror reciting your resume to yourself might serve you better?

[ZOOMIE1980]

ORIGINAL: Caltone

In the words of the late great Ronald Reagan;

There you go again

Dude you really don't need to keep telling us how great you are, we're never going to believe it. Perhaps some sessions in front of the mirror reciting your resume might do it for you?

I quite honestly don't give a damn what you believe or don't believe. This game has been delivered IN SPITE of its fundementally FLAWED application and data management design. The fact that in the editor, users are locked into SLOTS basically says it ALL. The is a great big procedural, fixed array DOS game. Yes, it is FUN, and it is ADDICTIVE, and I am 100% addicted. It is a brilliantly conceived game, with outstanding attention to detail and supported by as dedicated a staff of people as there exists in the industry.

But it clearly has MAJOR design flaws. And far beyond just the inconsistancies in game mechanics, which are understandable. You simply cannot get past the FACT it is based on a software development system that is 15 YEARS out of date and abandoned YEARS ago, even by game developers. I have the three best selling game development textbooks on the market today on my library shelf. All three emphasize Object Oriented design techniques and heavy use of structured disk file systems like Sql data engines, client-server architectures, distributed component design, and the heavy use of third party libraries. We even had a posted developement article that stated much of the same thing here about two weeks ago! The FACT is NONE of those techiniques was used here.

I need no mirror sessions. I know what I know. I don't expect WitP to be rewritten in any way. But I do expect the developers to address issues that are fundemental to software development world-wide. And that means CONSISTANT subsystem designs that lead to overall synergy. This aircraft system is 180 degrees from that. The pissed off BOTH sides of the issue with it. And that takes some DOING.

And one has to ask Matrix. What is the background of your designers and developers? If they have all been wargame designers and programmers throughout their careers, well that's a MAJOR problem. Have any of these guys ever spent time in other disciplines or are they mostly the SSI inner circle? I've read the bio's. They don't exactly exude diversity in experience. That kind of career concentration leads to groupthink and oppression of ideas. And I don't mean game concepts. I mean software design, development environment and project management concepts. I'd be willing to bet these guys don't even use #ifdef #include dependency managment techniques!

And that's why Matrix NEEDS a developers forum. So they can get a steady stream of modern design and developement input from the OUTSIDE. When will see a JAVA turn based wargame? JAVA is an OUTSTANDING platform for a turn based wargame. Coupled with a Hibernate database layer and that could be a REAL winner and open up Linux and MAC to the market. So where are the JAVA based titles? The likely response? Probably debunked. And if so, well there's another MAJOR problem.

[Culiacan Mexico]

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

If the Japanese had historically started Tony production 18 months earlier, and I if had both a large pool of Tony aircraft… You are damn right I would upgrade my air groups to use Tony’s. Who wouldn’t?

While historically the 244th (Nates) did upgrade to Tony/Tojo and the 1st (Nates) did not, is there a reason we are so restricted in the game?

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

Proposal, eliminate research and allow IJA fighters to upgrade freely, or just allow Oscar II to upgrade to Frank.

[Top Cat]

Hmmm on the WITP home page feature no 6. states and I quote :

"Complete player control of aircraft upgrades"

Simply not true. Unless there's a new definition of the word complete.

I can't understand why people are implying that building and using the best planes to the limits of your resource, research and production capabilities is ahistoric.

Your're effectively implying that the Japanese deliberately decided not use their resources in the best way they could. That they kept using crap planes for the sake of it.

If the research & production system in WITP can be abused to such an extent that some players feel that upgrade and deployment restrictions are obsolutely essential to maintain some semblance of historical reality then the only conclusion one can draw is that the R&D and production system is completely broken, ahistoric, unbounded by reality etc.

When I play the Japanese I will be touching it as little as possible, because there's seems to be more scope to screw up the whole deal than to do anything constructive.

WITP :
Oops I've made too many Franks and not enough Tony's. Damn I'll have to scrap em' because the Tony pilots would rather play cards than fly Franks. Duh? Can't think of anything more unreal let alone ahistoric.

Reality:
It's highly likely that due to circumstances beyond their control the Japanese didn't build what they had planned. But, you wouldn't know because they would have used what they got. The pilots would have used what they got. As opposed to waiting for what they didn't have.

Cheers
Top Cat

[Culiacan Mexico]

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.

"Complaint: Aircraft upgrade paths hard coded, does not allow player flexibility as requested"

"Solution: <blank> Eliminate research and allow…

Oznoyng - No upgrades outside of service. IJN -> IJN, IJA -> IJA, USN->USN, etc. only.

Lemurs! - There should probably not be any tree other than basics of no Army/Navy crosses, no bombers to fighters, etc.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag
I don't care if you change Oscar II's to Franks. I care if you R&D Franks to push them to earlier then Oscars and go straight from Nates to Franks. As long as the Oscar is available (e: the full R&D work to get to Franks), I'm more then happy to have you go from Nates to Franks should you choose to.

[ZOOMIE1980]

ORIGINAL: Culiacan Mexico

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.

"Complaint: Aircraft upgrade paths hard coded, does not allow player flexibility as requested"

"Solution: <blank> Eliminate research and allow…

Oznoyng - No upgrades outside of service. IJN -> IJN, IJA -> IJA, USN->USN, etc. only.

Lemurs! - There should probably not be any tree other than basics of no Army/Navy crosses, no bombers to fighters, etc.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag
I don't care if you change Oscar II's to Franks. I care if you R&D Franks to push them to earlier then Oscars and go straight from Nates to Franks. As long as the Oscar is available (e: the full R&D work to get to Franks), I'm more then happy to have you go from Nates to Franks should you choose to.

Wow! .....a solution???

[Culiacan Mexico]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus
I was against player controlled production, unless it was a toggable option. The BTR comments only cemented my reasons behind it. Players will inevitably do the same thing with it. They will cancel the medicore or bad designs and focus exclusively (within reasons and player tested strategies) on the better aircraft ultimately creating uniform (and ahistorical) airforces. Germans will have masses of FW-190's, US will dispense with P-39 and P-40 in favor of P-38, F6F goes in favor of F4U. etc etc.

[&:]
The number of P-39s or P-40Es in front line American units in 1945 were…?

Historically what you fear players would do is what was done historically: mediocre or bad designs were relegated to secondary use. Do you disagree?

[Top Cat]

Cheesy research skipping could have been "discouraged" by having research or production minimums that can't be shut down.

ie You might have 20/20 hindsight and know that plane x is a dead end. But there's a research program that going to suck in resources no matter what because you can't know that plane x sucks yet.

Once plane x has been researched or you've built enough then you "know" that it sucks and you can react be killing it off, but not before. Again this would cost resources to convert.

That way a player can accelerate what he likes, and stop or downgrade what he doesn't like but not before he's got some real results in hand.

Also could have some simple research pre-requisites put in place? ie you can't start research on plane y until you've finished the research on plane y-1 or y-2, whatever plane that gives time lag that is appropriate. If the prerequisite isn't done then research progress = 0.

That would've been my way of dealing with the 20/20 hindsight problem. I think it's closer to the root of the problem. Fixed plane upgrades is further downstream in my book.

Cheers
Top Cat

[steveh11Matrix]

If some of you gentlemen would care to take your personal arguments off-line, we might manage to keep on topic here long enough to actually get one of the developers to definitively say "Yea" or "Nay" on this one....

[:-]

Steve.

[Top Cat]

ORIGINAL: steveh11Matrix

If some of you gentlemen would care to take your personal arguments off-line, we might manage to keep on topic here long enough to actually get one of the developers to definitively say "Yea" or "Nay" on this one....

[:-]

Steve.

Err what did I say that was off topic?
Spoke about upgrades, research and wether things are historical/realistic

Top Cat