Matrix Games Forums

Posted: **Mon Apr 04, 2005 2:16 pm**

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

The amount of work put into this thread could have productively been redirected at multiple series of conclusive tests backing up your "whines" and perhaps actually get some action ...

Sad really, but thats why things don't change, everyone expects someone "else" to do the work and instead complains. You get what you are willing to put into things.

What's sad is to find someone from development writing anything of this nature. The "testing" of the kind you speak to ought to have been done in alpha a couple of years ago. Quite apparently is was not. Nevertheless, the "testing" you refer to, your overtone aside, is in fact being performed in the best manner possible, right now, in the game, turn to turn, by experienced wargamers. The feedback from the most serious of these wargamers is that the model is not only broken in general but in some instances shattered. And don't even get me going on the bugs.

Subs need tweacking? yes. Does this make the game bad/unplayable/no_fun_to_play? No. Sorry man, but it is like that just for you.

Some fixes would be welcome (subs for sure). But this hardly makes the game unplayable. and for the records, WiTP is a WARGAME. you read...WAR...GAME. Please find me where it has been advertized as an Historical Simulation where everything works as in RL. it's impossible. and you know why? cause players learn the system and so optimize their gameplay.
ASW would be fine unless players use 30 ASW in a TF. You actually don't know if it would have been easy in RL for subs to sink ships with TF made of 30 ASW ships escorting. Cause in RL this didn't happen.

Posted: **Mon Apr 04, 2005 2:44 pm**

ORIGINAL: afspret
Why do some people seem to be getting upset or complain about certain things that happen during this game which did not historically happen during the war? This is after all a GAME! What good would it be to play a game where every move and the end is predetermined?

My theory is that many of the people around here are or have been soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen, coastguardmen, national guardsmen, armed boy-scouts or members of a Paintball Team. And like all good soldiers do, they b*tch a lot - about the lousy chow, poor weather, the latest SNAFU, or WitP. Just a bad habit. [;)]

Posted: **Mon Apr 04, 2005 3:00 pm**

Unlike you, I'm not going to make this a cheap and unwarranted shot. If it's so easy to change on the code end, then change it. It's off.

Everytime you post you take cheap shots at a lot of hard working people. You say it's off, prove it, you word means nothing to me.

Posted: **Mon Apr 04, 2005 3:04 pm**

Guys guys, calm down.... lets stop taking shots at each other... We all want the game fixed/improved, and taking shots at each other isn't going to do it. So step back, take a breather, and come back with a cool head.

As to my thoughts, I think ASW needs tweaked (read tweaked, not fixed, not repaired, etc), but the game is hardly unplayable.

Posted: **Mon Apr 04, 2005 3:08 pm**

As to my thoughts, I think ASW needs tweaked (read tweaked, not fixed, not repaired, etc), but the game is hardly unplayable.

Tweeked *how*?

Less accuracy?

Less effect/damage?

Lower chance of finding target?

Higher chance on sub first strike?

Limit on how many ships engageper attack?

Please be more specific as generalities go in circles.

Posted: **Mon Apr 04, 2005 3:24 pm**

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Unlike you, I'm not going to make this a cheap and unwarranted shot. If it's so easy to change on the code end, then change it. It's off.

Everytime you post you take cheap shots at a lot of hard working people. You say it's off, prove it, you word means nothing to me.

Good gawd. My posts are not cheap shots, they are valid criticsms of various issues with the model, all made with the games improvement in mind. Some are repetive because they need to be in this trench warfare like environment between players/consumers and the developers/designers. If you think they are cheap shots perhaps you are the sensative type. That's OK, women like that.

Posted: **Mon Apr 04, 2005 3:31 pm**

A cheap shot is a post without content. You are famous for them to the point that people here joke about it.

Try substance, you might actually find it works.

Ron: "ASW doesn't work"

Leo: "I have run 50 tests of ASW in these conditions blah blah blah ..."

Thanks Leo, we have adjusted it based on your findings and further testing ...

Now, you can be a "Leo" or you can be a "Ron" ... Which do you think produces results?

Posted: **Mon Apr 04, 2005 3:39 pm**

Tweaked how? All destroyers in a TF should not be able to DC a sub during a counter attack. If you have 5 DDs, 2 can DC the sub, while the other 3 would typically maintain contact. I feel based on history that the percentage of Destroyers allowed to attack a submarine with depth charges should be lowered. Specifically, all destroyers in a TF should not be allowed to engage a submarine, especially during a counter attack.

Posted: **Mon Apr 04, 2005 3:49 pm**

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

A cheap shot is a post without content. You are famous for them to the point that people here joke about it.

Try substance, you might actually find it works.

Ron: "ASW doesn't work"

Leo: "I have run 50 tests of ASW in these conditions blah blah blah ..."

Thanks Leo, we have adjusted it based on your findings and further testing ...

Now, you can be a "Leo" or you can be a "Ron" ... Which do you think produces results?

I'm not going to constantly repost every test I've done in the past. Do you introduce yourself as Ray Gardiner everytime you visit your folks? "Hi, mom, I'm Ray Gardiner. May I use the bog?" Lack of content my ass. I've run dozens of tests. ASW I've posted in the dev forums when WITP went beta. I ran the Mariannas scenario 6 times and in all instances there were no subs left on either side by the scenario's conclusion. What would you draw from this? Read the AARs...there are hundreds of examples if you need any more convincing data. Look at the AAR in the WAR PLAN ORANGE forum. Even 1920's era ships with no ability to detect a submerged sub attempting to evade were slamming the subs 80% of the time. From what I understand it was obvious enough for Mike Wood to change the code for the WPO expansion, why not here? Because I've peed off people by pressing the issue?

Posted: **Mon Apr 04, 2005 3:54 pm**

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Geezus Eff Crisco! I am getting pissed at the obvious ignorance out there. Yes some of us are bitching about some aspects of the game because it is ahistorical. This is not because of players using ahistorical tactics with historical assets and with the physical realities of the period intact. We are pissed that "THE GAME HAS FUDGED SO MANY ASPECTS OF THE ISSUE THAT PLAYERS CAN SUCCEED USING THEIR AHISTORICALLY REPRESENTED ASSETS AHISTORICALLY".

If the game came close to modelling the realities, ahistorical tactics would not work. Making Bombardment TFs and shutting down bases with them nightly would not work. Look at the picture below. This is USS Maryland rearming. Does this look like a drive through fast food joint? Sorry, but tasks like this were major evolutions which took hours, days even, not the instantaneous add water and stir imaginations of Captain Abstract and the Fantasy Fops.

See the ship next to it? It is an ammunition stores ship, and unlike WITP, can only really be in one place at a time. This being so, it would take six of these, or considerably more ammunition lighters or quayside pier space to handle the six BBs used in the recent Pago Pago Bombardment TF example posted in the "Nuke Thread." As one can imagine, the ability to rearm 1 ship or a thousand without restriction in any port as WITP allows is complete BS and basic design EFF UPs like this (and many are repeated from game to game, generation to generation) make any art and detail bells and whistles added since PACWAR totally pointless.

Notice the ammo bags? These look kinda unique, don't they? Well, they are. They are specifically designed for the mark of gun used on the three Colorado Class BBs in the US Navy, and as such, had to be brought in special for these ships. Same with the shell. Guess that would mean that their availability in the game would be at least limited to lets say USN Ammunition ships, Ports with US Naval Base units, largergest of US Naval bases like Pearl Harbor, Mare Island, San Francisco, etc?.........wait for it.......NOT SO! In WITP, this specialty, unique, and limited in supply ammo is available at any cove near you, and in amounts equal to such basic staples as beans, spam, smokes, powdered eggs, asshole bosses...

This is the kind of stuff that allows ahistorical results. We are not asking for a history book. We are asking for a history template with which to play out the history in whatever way circumstances allow it to.

Here is another example. Players forming ASW TFs with DDs which had 1940's DCs and sound gear would and should not bag you submarines in WITP as often as heads comes up in a coin toss. But they do. Why? Here we go...take it George.

"In WITP players use wire guided depth charges with Kablammo (TM), a special explosive designed by the folks at WITP to make individual DCs not only near 75% accurate, but nearly always fatal too.

IRL they used depth charges which were unguided and had basic TNT, Torpex, or some other traditional explosive trigged by timers or depth triggers. This made them extremely inaccurate and tens, if not hundreds, were usually dropped to achieve a sinking.

****

In WITP it is common to spot subs from the air and from the decks of ships during daylight because, among a host of things, submariners are retards, don't submerge in enemy waters during daylight, surface ships can use sonar at full speed, and surface ships have X RAY vision.

IRL spotting subs was difficult as they generally were the hunters, not the other way around (at least until advent of major tech breakthroughs in radar, sonar, techniques, availability, and sheer number of platforms on which to carry these new devices). Subs had a lower profile than surface ships so generally sighted the enemy first on the surface, day or night. Submerged, submarines generally spotted surface ships first as well through use of hydrophones and their even further reduced profile (now down to a periscope!). At speed, it was near impossible for a surface ship to even know a submarine is in the area unless a pericope or periscope feather was noticed (required basically calm sea states, careless use of periscope, and incredible diligence and luck on the part of surface ships.

****

In WITP subs are not only easily detected but are like lambs at the slaugher as well. No evasion by sub is permitted if discovered. Subs can't even fire back. Simply, they just sit there and take it. Baaahahahahahaaa....

IRL subs generally avoided attacking ASW TFs, and because they were subs, were generally successful in doing so. If detected, subs were again generally successful at evasion unless in shallow, restricted waters or vs late war Allied escorts. When attacked, subs often fired defensively (the down the throat shot).

Are detailed explanations of the problems with the game given in an extremely entertaining way. They are not cheap shots.

Posted: **Mon Apr 04, 2005 4:04 pm**

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

As to my thoughts, I think ASW needs tweaked (read tweaked, not fixed, not repaired, etc), but the game is hardly unplayable.

Tweeked *how*?

Less accuracy?

Less effect/damage?

Lower chance of finding target?

Higher chance on sub first strike?

Limit on how many ships engageper attack?

Please be more specific as generalities go in circles.

I go along with those that think that the ASW attack routines are too efficient and cause catastrophic sub losses that are far too high. I would try number 3 and 5.

For ASW TFs ... reduce the detection chance a little bit and limit the number of ships that can attack.

For non-ASW TFs ... reduce the detection chance a lot unless the sub initiates an attack. To me, those circumstances when a TF containing ASW capable ships, engaged in another mission, and a sub TF that just happen to be transiting the same hex should not result in a sunken sub almost every time.

Posted: **Mon Apr 04, 2005 11:08 pm**

Must be me, I've never seen any of your tests Ron, ever.

By the way, if you are going to use my name, at least spell it right, I don't call you Rin [:D]

I struggle trying to understand what using the late war scenarios prove in the way of tests apart from the fact that Allied ASW efforts were very effective towards the end of the war. You do remember there are multiple sliding scale modifiers in the game and it is *very* date sensitive right?

Posted: **Mon Apr 04, 2005 11:58 pm**

Late war tests have a major purpose. As far back as early beta I tried the Mariannas scenario and the subs were dying off at nearly every encounter, either side. So I ran a few tests and this was the norm. So subs were being killed off, regardless of nationality, in 1944 to the point of extinction. This is hardly what was the state of affairs IRL. Then you add the fact that ship crew ratings were not as high as they would be with 2-3 years of constant combat in a campaign game and you must realize that this is indeed off. Further, USN subs with all the technical advances by 1944 were still being destroyed enmasse by Japanese escorts. In my view this goes some distance providing proof that the ASW model is flawed.

And, this game does go beyond 1942, it goes to 1946, so 1944 based test are pertinent.

Posted: **Tue Apr 05, 2005 12:06 am**

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

What's sad is to find someone from development writing anything of this nature. The "testing" of the kind you speak to ought to have been done in alpha a couple of years ago. Quite apparently is was not. Nevertheless, the "testing" you refer to, your overtone aside, is in fact being performed in the best manner possible, right now, in the game, turn to turn, by experienced wargamers. The feedback from the most serious of these wargamers is that the model is not only broken in general but in some instances shattered. And don't even get me going on the bugs.

The real problem was that they tried to hardcode far too much of WITP. A project this big was never going to give
up all it's quirks, bugs, and errors in any normal period of testing. Had the design crew admitted that in the beginning
and gone with more open-ended coding the real playtesting could have continued even after production and release.
As it was released, many of the problems and errors that have shown up in play keep running into the stonewall
of the coding. "We can't fix this without screwing up that." I admire 2by3 for biting off such a massive project,
but they were short-sighted in the way it was implemented. And it's led to frustration on both sides of the field.

Well-reasoned observation. And I think the reason Gary didn't do it your way is because he had the rough template for WitP sitting there already in UV. Why he chose to design the latter title in that manner probably dates back to his earliest forays into game design, and without knowing I would guess it's just his "style."

Worse luck for us.

Posted: **Tue Apr 05, 2005 12:16 am**

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Must be me, I've never seen any of your tests Ron, ever.

By the way, if you are going to use my name, at least spell it right, I don't call you Rin [:D]

I struggle trying to understand what using the late war scenarios prove in the way of tests apart from the fact that Allied ASW efforts were very effective towards the end of the war. You do remember there are multiple sliding scale modifiers in the game and it is *very* date sensitive right?

If it helps the discussion, Whenever I spot an enemy sub off the East coast of OZ I just form an ASW TF and send them out to do the extermination. They are a bout 90% effective. The routine goes like this.

Sight, form, send, sink, disband...repeat.

I'll have to check and see how many so far, but if I have to guess its about 20 total subs lost by the IJN in my PBEM in Mid-March 42'

Posted: **Tue Apr 05, 2005 1:09 am**

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Seeing as Ron never paid attention during Beta, let me clue you in to what he's not bothering to post. Sub handling is centralized into a couple variables. Easy to change. ASW & Sub handling has been changed in every single patch, contrary to TJ's posts who doesn't seem to be able to read Whatsnew.pdf. The very reason they were centralized was to make changes simple to do as it was understood from day one that things would require tweeking after release.

Feel free to continue to come up with excuses for something not being done, but in the end it belongs right in your lap. You want to blame someone else for you sitting on your arses, whatever. Typical cop out. Good thing the testers didn't operate like that or there wouldn't even be a game.

Well, let's see. What have I actually read in the WhatsNew.pdf. I've seen some good and I've seen some bad. But I'll need to go back and check for details. Please, come with me. Hand in hand. [:)]

For v1.40 I read that one of the player-requested "features" installed was that airfield/port completed construction would now be displayed on the screen and put into the operations report. Information which ought not to be available to opponents without obtaining it from recon is now being presented free. My PBEM opponent, Chez, brought this up to me a couple of weeks ago. Guess if I agree with him or no? On the other hand, the Zero bonus was made to not apply to the AVG anymore, a kind of good feature because it simulates the latter group's ability to combat Japanese aircraft in general on a more or less even footing with re to its superior doctrine. (Chez would fight you on this one though re the Zero in particular, as he doesn't believe the AVG ever faced them.)

For v1.30, under item 14 I'm told that the problem with TFs, which were taking matter under their own control, was now fixed. It is not fixed. I've reported this a number of times, once in the support forum with a screen shot to demonstrate what was happening, and offered to provide saves. Nobody responded. One turn in my PBEM game I had five separate TFs sailing off to God knows where. And so on.

Item 23 tells me that the problem with air units being loathe to attack ground units is now fixed. It is not now fixed, It is still broken. I know this for a fact because I have a bunch of bombers sitting at Chandpur with two Air HQ to help them get going and over the past month, roughly speaking, they only attacked a ground unit (under 8 hexes away) they're targeted for three times. Their moral is high, their fatigue is low, and they've the best commands that the Lemurs! scenario 15 can afford. And I'm not the only one who has mentioned this on the public boards.

Item 29 tells me that the problem with ships having their commander changed to a Japanese officer was fixed. That has not been fixed. I had one Australian or Dutch cruiser commanded by a junior Japanese pilot! This was during a turn when the naval model badly cocked up, just to make more royal still. [8D] On other occasions I've found my ships commanded by Army officers, junior-rank deadheads and someone called "???."

Item 30 implies that all ships entering Bataan hex will be fired on. I don't personally know if this is true, but if I were you or Mike I'd check with Mike Scholl. Either he or someone reported recently that this is not the case.

Item 13 under player-requested features finally gets to ASW warfare, and states that Allied ASW will be less effective than it was until the middle of 1943 (why can't you just give a simple date?) and "Allied submarines should be a bit more resistant to Japanese ASW attacks after the middle of 1943." Ron will howl at that one. [:D]

Under "New Features" we find item 1, which says "The player may now select 'Allied Sub Doctrine', [sic] which causes Allied submarines to avoid an aggressive posture until the middle of 1943." [italics mine]

Again, why no specific date?

It goes on to say, "The result is the submarines will get off fewer shots at long ranger and receive fewer depth charge attacks."

Get off fewer shots at longer range? Hello? How about instead saying "These Allied submarines will consequently not get off any shots for all intents and purpose because they're rarely going to even see any enemy ships, and when they do it's a 1-in-100-chance that they will actually loose any fish"? Avoid an "aggressive posture"? I'll say!

What a crock! [:D]

For v1.10 I find very little of interest, and nothing whatsoever pertinent to ASW issues.

That's what I find when I read the WhatsNew.pdf. What do you imagine is in there? [8D]

Posted: **Tue Apr 05, 2005 1:11 am**

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

ORIGINAL: afspret
Why do some people seem to be getting upset or complain about certain things that happen during this game which did not historically happen during the war? This is after all a GAME! What good would it be to play a game where every move and the end is predetermined?

My theory is that many of the people around here are or have been soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen, coastguardmen, national guardsmen, armed boy-scouts or members of a Paintball Team. And like all good soldiers do, they b*tch a lot - about the lousy chow, poor weather, the latest SNAFU, or WitP. Just a bad habit. [;)]

That's a riot! [:D]

Posted: **Tue Apr 05, 2005 1:28 am**

ORIGINAL: TheElf

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Must be me, I've never seen any of your tests Ron, ever.

By the way, if you are going to use my name, at least spell it right, I don't call you Rin [:D]

I struggle trying to understand what using the late war scenarios prove in the way of tests apart from the fact that Allied ASW efforts were very effective towards the end of the war. You do remember there are multiple sliding scale modifiers in the game and it is *very* date sensitive right?

If it helps the discussion, Whenever I spot an enemy sub off the East coast of OZ I just form an ASW TF and send them out to do the extermination. They are a bout 90% effective. The routine goes like this.

Sight, form, send, sink, disband...repeat.

I'll have to check and see how many so far, but if I have to guess its about 20 total subs lost by the IJN in my PBEM in Mid-March 42'

I believe my PBEM opponent (Japanese) has lost something like 22 in mid May 1942, and I don't even form ASW groups. One time just off Sydney one of his boats was unlucky enough to cross the path of a TF formed of one DD and three DMS ships out of Noumea in transit to Sydney for upgrades/repairs. My ships (none of which had a crew night experience rating of 55 or greater) sunk that poor boat of his as if it were an afterthought, then proceeded to paddle their collective way into the harbor.

Another time one of this guy's subs was caught over at Brisbane by a MSW of mine with such a low crew night rating that I actually posted the account for Mogami. Same type of action, same result.

Does the ASW model need tweaking? Is a pocket handy on a shirt?

Posted: **Tue Apr 05, 2005 1:37 am**

Is a pocket handy on a shirt?

only if it's big enough to carry a beer.

Posted: **Tue Apr 05, 2005 4:42 am**

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

ORIGINAL: afspret
Why do some people seem to be getting upset or complain about certain things that happen during this game which did not historically happen during the war? This is after all a GAME! What good would it be to play a game where every move and the end is predetermined?

My theory is that many of the people around here are or have been soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen, coastguardmen, national guardsmen, armed boy-scouts or members of a Paintball Team. And like all good soldiers do, they b*tch a lot - about the lousy chow, poor weather, the latest SNAFU, or WitP. Just a bad habit. [;)]

That's a riot! [:D]

I like to bitch about Chow, the Weather, and sorties with no mission/purpose.

Matrix Games Forums

Upset for what?

RE: Upset for what?

RE: Upset for what?

RE: Upset for what?

RE: Upset for what?

RE: Upset for what?

RE: Upset for what?

RE: Upset for what?

RE: Upset for what?

RE: Upset for what?

RE: Upset for what?

RE: Upset for what?

RE: Upset for what?

RE: Upset for what?

RE: Upset for what?

RE: Upset for what?

RE: Upset for what?

RE: Upset for what?

RE: Upset for what?

RE: Upset for what?

RE: Upset for what?