Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980


You don't think I couldn't write a damned game? LOL!

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Mr Frag,

a. I agree
b. I agree if what you are saying is research is generic i.e. you allocate research points to Navy or Army (or possible Navy Bombers/ Navy Fighters/ Army Fighters/ Army Bombers) and that availability dates are therefore accelerated across the board for these categories dependent on research.
c. Allow conversion of to different aircraft for a to be determined price. Possibilities are governed by PP costs? I agree

hook into existing "disband with reform" ability to not have to change major portions of code? Not sure about this one but could be livable with if it was a 15 day or 30 day return

Downgrade Pilot's skills? Time based limit (ie: 1 per week permitted?). Yes

Should new planes arrive in damaged state just like current upgrade or should unit be removed from map and reformed like in a disband/withdrawl? What limits should be imposed on conversions from a type to type catagory? Like for Like by service? Does this ability exist for the Allied side? Is this required to be balanced? Should there be some level of reserve held back that can not be used so existing groups have

Not sure of these I would say if a player is silly enough to leave no reserve then thats there fault. On allied side I would like it (I only really play allies [:D]) but could live without it I only really view it as an issue for Japanese.

d. For simplicity (and I accept this will give some strange situations) I would keep reinforcements as is.

e. Would love it but as with d above I would leave it as is as long as upgraded gp keeps old pilots but at reduced exp.

f. This is the real nasty one. I am guessing it would have to be PBEM only via a toggle. The simpler we keep any amendment the easier the computer could cope with it but there is no easy solution hence i think tobggle is best answer.

Andy

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Ok, lets try and net out the thread.

a) Planes should have a variable cost?

Higher end aircraft require better production facilities to produce a finished product. Whether this is a time based control or a materials based control is up for discussion. It would be interesting to tie these costs into research so as more advanced aircraft are developed, the costs of older aircraft are reduced. ie: a A6M2 in 1941 is not cheap, but once the A6M5 is available, it is dropped in cost to that of a A5M4 until reaching the capped minimum cost. This would allow the mass vs quality choice and allows producing older aircraft cheaper then the latest model.

b) Research should be blind to the player?

While we happen to have 20/20 hindsight, the game should not at all. Research should be applied against a historical path of aircraft developed, perhaps split into a naval pool and a land based pool. This ensures that aircraft that were based on previous designs follow a logical progression and you can't subvert the intent by committing massively to R&D against a far future aircraft.

c) Conversions of Unit's assigned aircraft?

Allow conversion of to different aircraft for a to be determined price. Possibilities are governed by PP costs? hook into existing "disband with reform" ability to not have to change major portions of code? Downgrade Pilot's skills? Time based limit (ie: 1 per week permitted?). Should new planes arrive in damaged state just like current upgrade or should unit be removed from map and reformed like in a disband/withdrawl? What limits should be imposed on conversions from a type to type catagory? Like for Like by service? Does this ability exist for the Allied side? Is this required to be balanced? Should there be some level of reserve held back that can not be used so existing groups have

d) Reinforcements?

Currently, these are bound to type and date. Should the type be selectable? Should this date adjust based on aircraft availability? Should R&D factor into this? Should the type be bound to the rules imposed by (c)? Should the OOB be stripped down to catagory and date? Should it be removed completely and be based on Pilot availability?

e) Pilots?

Tough to discuss planes without dealing with the reason they fly. Pilots currently come in 2 forms. A pool system and a off map system that feeds Reinforcement groups. Should this be scrapped completely and replaced with a pilot school type system which is funded resulting in a what you get is all you get system? Does this improve or hinder the above?

f) AI?

How does the AI deal with any changes? Do they break the game for those playing against the computer? Do default choices need to be assigned to allow the AI to continue to function? Would these become player vs player ONLY optional controls?

ORIGINAL: byron13

So, what's everyone doing this weekend? [:)]

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

Well zoomie, wether you could write a "damned game" or not is irrelevant. Matrix/2by3 aren't going to just give you the source code. As a programmer, you of all people should realize you don't spend 5 years coding a game, and then because one guy says "give me the source code, I can fix your screw up!" you don't say "well, here you go!" Do us all a favor and only ask/offer for a realistic solution.

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

Well zoomie, wether you could write a "damned game" or not is irrelevant. Matrix/2by3 aren't going to just give you the source code. As a programmer, you of all people should realize you don't spend 5 years coding a game, and then because one guy says "give me the source code, I can fix your screw up!" you don't say "well, here you go!" Do us all a favor and only ask/offer for a realistic solution.

Sometimes you guys are thick as hell! That was a tongue-in-cheek comment to Frag's insistance on detailed design suggestions when we have no idea what the upgrade/research implementation looks like. We see a lot of "that's a design issue, so no" type of response. Fine, then we can't obviously submit anything useful and "implementable" for substantive change requiring design tweeking, because we are shooting blindly.

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980


You don't think I couldn't write a damned game? LOL!

Prove me wrong.

ORIGINAL: VicKevlar

Alright......enuff......get this thread on track asap. Take the "Who's unit is bigger" stuff someplace else. Got it?

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980
Benn there, done that.

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

I understand what it was. I just feel that all of us need to not go OT, so we can get this problem fixed.

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Ok, lets try and net out the thread.

a) Planes should have a variable cost?

Higher end aircraft require better production facilities to produce a finished product. Whether this is a time based control or a materials based control is up for discussion. It would be interesting to tie these costs into research so as more advanced aircraft are developed, the costs of older aircraft are reduced. ie: a A6M2 in 1941 is not cheap, but once the A6M5 is available, it is dropped in cost to that of a A5M4 until reaching the capped minimum cost. This would allow the mass vs quality choice and allows producing older aircraft cheaper then the latest model.

Agreed. It does not have to be this complex. Costs for planes do not have to change. The increasing average cost as new planes are developed has the same effect. This is what is in BTR now.

b) Research should be blind to the player?

While we happen to have 20/20 hindsight, the game should not at all. Research should be applied against a historical path of aircraft developed, perhaps split into a naval pool and a land based pool. This ensures that aircraft that were based on previous designs follow a logical progression and you can't subvert the intent by committing massively to R&D against a far future aircraft.

Disagree. The preformance characteristics of planes being developed was not unknown, just often ignored. Also, the planes were DESIGNED to the preformance.


c) Conversions of Unit's assigned aircraft?

Allow conversion of to different aircraft for a to be determined price. Possibilities are governed by PP costs? hook into existing "disband with reform" ability to not have to change major portions of code? Downgrade Pilot's skills? Time based limit (ie: 1 per week permitted?). Should new planes arrive in damaged state just like current upgrade or should unit be removed from map and reformed like in a disband/withdrawl? What limits should be imposed on conversions from a type to type catagory? Like for Like by service? Does this ability exist for the Allied side? Is this required to be balanced? Should there be some level of reserve held back that can not be used so existing groups have

I urge caution. It does not take that much to change from similar models of the same planes. As I mentioned before, the Germans often changed Gruppen from ME-109 to FW-190 depending on what was available, and did not disband or stand down for log periods of time.

d) Reinforcements?

Currently, these are bound to type and date. Should the type be selectable? Should this date adjust based on aircraft availability? Should R&D factor into this? Should the type be bound to the rules imposed by (c)? Should the OOB be stripped down to catagory and date? Should it be removed completely and be based on Pilot availability?

e) Pilots?

Tough to discuss planes without dealing with the reason they fly. Pilots currently come in 2 forms. A pool system and a off map system that feeds Reinforcement groups. Should this be scrapped completely and replaced with a pilot school type system which is funded resulting in a what you get is all you get system? Does this improve or hinder the above?

f) AI?

How does the AI deal with any changes? Do they break the game for those playing against the computer? Do default choices need to be assigned to allow the AI to continue to function? Would these become player vs player ONLY optional controls?

ORIGINAL: Culiacan Mexico


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?