Long Lance tube hits

[Nomad]

ORIGINAL: Ryvan

ORIGINAL: rockmedic109

Lowering armor would not be my choice. Admittedly this would be better than lowering DUR of the ship, but still would cause other effects that would be less than desired.

I am unsure what effect {if any} modifying component armor would have.

Best case would be the program checks for a torpedo explosion when fire reaches a certain level or a hit on the torpedo tubes. Just as good would be checking for a magazine explosion on torpedo tube hits. But these would be a code change and outside of editor capabilities.

I agree with you on all points. Unfortunately, the devs have already said they won't even consider this type of work because they don't like one of the people who argued for it. I don't know anything about the history of mdiehl on the forums, but frankly I find the declaration that the devs are more concerned with who likes the idea than whether the idea has merit to be quite troubling.

Anyway, lowering deck armor should make bomb hits a bit more destructive as they should be.

Another question I have. How does the game engine determine which armor type is hit by a ship-fired round or an aerial bomb? Maybe lowering tower armor would be better if it would result in less hits against the lowered armor value but more catastophic damage if a hit occurs.

edit: misidentfied topic starter

This is incorrect. They stated that this was not really within the scope of the work they are doing. It would take special code to check for this and most likely not really worth the effort. There are a lot of items that did not get included in the AE design and I am not even sure this was one that was considered. And to be complete, I am in no way connected with AE, but I do read what is written.

[wworld7]

ORIGINAL: Ryvan

I agree with you on all points. Unfortunately, the devs have already said they won't even consider this type of work because they don't like one of the people who argued for it. I don't know anything about the history of mdiehl on the forums, but frankly I find the declaration that the devs are more concerned with who likes the idea than whether the idea has merit to be quite troubling.

Your understanding of the facts is wrong, I suggest you go back and verify your facts. Please show me the quote where the current Dev team says what you say they said.

To imply that the Dev team is that shallow is uncalled for. They are a hard-working group of people trying to complete a difficult project. And IMO, one that needs NO MORE additions or changes beyond what it takes to make what is done work as well as possible.

Mdiehl and Terminus having issues with each others comments is what it is. My best advice is just ignore the silly stuff and move on.

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: flipperwasirish

ORIGINAL: Ryvan

I agree with you on all points. Unfortunately, the devs have already said they won't even consider this type of work because they don't like one of the people who argued for it. I don't know anything about the history of mdiehl on the forums, but frankly I find the declaration that the devs are more concerned with who likes the idea than whether the idea has merit to be quite troubling.

Your understanding of the facts is wrong, I suggest you go back and verify your facts. Please show me the quote where the current Dev team says what you say they said.

To imply that the Dev team is that shallow is uncalled for. They are a hard-working group of people trying to complete a difficult project. And IMO, one that needs NO MORE additions or changes beyond what it takes to make what is done work as well as possible.

Mdiehl and Terminus having issues with each others comments is what it is. My best advice is just ignore the silly stuff and move on.

The DEVs are not considering the suggestion in this thread right now - because the "kitchen is - and has been closed for changes" ... we are tweaking the AI data and testing ... no more enhancements until at least patch 02.

[Klahn]

ORIGINAL: Nomad

.... but I do read what is written.

Nice personal attack, but so do I. It was in regards to this.

ORIGINAL: Terminus

... nothing he says or does will have the slightest influence on AE development

Out of curiosity, where exactly did a dev say that "this was not really within the scope of the work they are doing. It would take special code to check for this and most likely not really worth the effort."

The only dev to post in this thread that I'm aware of was Terminus. His only statement was that the issue "never came up." Here is the sum total of his contributions to the thread:

----------

"That would also require a mechanism to allow the ship to attempt to jettison the fish, which also happened quite often. I don't think it's ever been brought up, certainly not during my brief tenure as naval chief."

----------

"No."
----------

"It's amusing how Diehl is feebly attempting to lecture people on what should and should not be done about a game that he himself does not, and has never, played.

Nobody is interested, Diehl; go troll some other forum. "

----------

"Adding "in my opinion" to any of his posts would indicate that Diehl's "opinion" isn't totally superior to any one else's, which he thinks it is."

----------

"There's an old adage: "don't feed the trolls". By unwisely engaging Diehl, I've been throwing him tidbits. That's going to stop now, but I won't leave without this parting broadside: the AE team is fully cognizant of Diehl's agenda and methods.

Because we know what makes him tick, nothing he says or does will have the slightest influence on AE development. He's a special case, however; we're willing to listen to everybody else, but not him.

So you see, Diehl, you didn't "put me in my place". I've been in "my place" a long time, and it's a place you'll never get within a light year of.

One other thing: I apologize to Footslogger and 2nd ACR for my attitude towards them in the other thread. I was out of line."

----------

So we have 1 post saying "we never thought about it" and 4 personal attacks on a poster culminating in posting as a representative of the dev team saying that the entire team shares this opinion.

I do find this troubling. And in no way do I believe that this is a "special case." I seriously doubt the dev team as a group got together to decide to ignore just one customer.

[Klahn]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

The DEVs are not considering the suggestion in this thread right now - because the "kitchen is - and has been closed for changes" ... we are tweaking the AI data and testing ... no more enhancements until at least patch 02.

Thanks. I understand completely and that is precisely the statement I've been looking for. [:)]

[Klahn]

ORIGINAL: flipperwasirish

Your understanding of the facts is wrong, I suggest you go back and verify your facts. Please show me the quote where the current Dev team says what you say they said.

To imply that the Dev team is that shallow is uncalled for. They are a hard-working group of people trying to complete a difficult project. And IMO, one that needs NO MORE additions or changes beyond what it takes to make what is done work as well as possible.

Mdiehl and Terminus having issues with each others comments is what it is. My best advice is just ignore the silly stuff and move on.

From the only dev to post in this thread that I know of:

"Because we know what makes him tick, nothing he says or does will have the slightest influence on AE development. He's a special case, however; we're willing to listen to everybody else, but not him."

I assumed "we" and "we're" meant the dev team.

Am I wrong in this assumption? He posted earlier in the thread that he was the "naval chief." I guess I could be wrong about him being a dev though. If I am I apologize.

edit: fix quote tag

[Klahn]

Having just been informed of what the real situation is via PM, I do owe both the devs and the rest of the beta team an apology.  I assumed Terminus was a dev based on what he had posted and this is not the case.  I should have realized that Terminus and MDiehl had some type of background history with each other and that I should have taken their statements to each other with a grain of salt.
 
So here is my official apology to all of the hard working people trying to make this a better game.
 
Sorry folks.

[wworld7]

Apology's are good.

We all make mistakes, and sometimes errors based upon faulty assumptions.

In the end we all need to remember this is all about a game.

So have fun looking forward to the distant date in the future when WitP-AE is released.

For on that day we can start the countdown to the next, best, latest, greatest evolution of this product.

WITP-2

[Lanconic]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

There's an old adage: "don't feed the trolls". By unwisely engaging Diehl, I've been throwing him tidbits. That's going to stop now, but I won't leave without this parting broadside: the AE team is fully cognizant of Diehl's agenda and methods.

Because we know what makes him tick, nothing he says or does will have the slightest influence on AE development. He's a special case, however; we're willing to listen to everybody else, but not him.

So you see, Diehl, you didn't "put me in my place". I've been in "my place" a long time, and it's a place you'll never get within a light year of.

One other thing: I apologize to Footslogger and 2nd ACR for my attitude towards them in the other thread. I was out of line.

There is another adage =) Dont try giving people advice, when you dont have any idea of what is going on. =) You dont Terminus and I will not enlighten you.

[Lanconic]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Lanconic

Let us start by asking about the grounding of four pre-war four stack pipers, on a sand bar. Several seamen were killed.

Red Herring alert! That was a pre-war occurance..., like the "stability problems" on many Japanese ship designs. Whack away at Mdiehl all you want..., but let's keep the "facts" you use within the scope of the War in the Pacific.

So only events that occur DURING the war matter? Thats an interesting assertion =)

[Lanconic]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Lanconic

Let us start by asking about the grounding of four pre-war four stack pipers, on a sand bar. Several seamen were killed.

Red Herring alert! That was a pre-war occurance..., like the "stability problems" on many Japanese ship designs. Whack away at Mdiehl all you want..., but let's keep the "facts" you use within the scope of the War in the Pacific.

BTW Mr. Scholl the Battleship Missouri pride of the navy grounded on a sandbar in
Chesapeake Bay AFTER the war. Guess they didnt learn much?
Made a great sight for the Congressmen driving to work.

[Lanconic]

My point in all this is.... If you have a hidden agenda, you can always find some issue
to achieve it. If any of you actually read, about high speed collisions during the war,
(of the USN) you would get an idea that they just might be accident prone.

Do you want to model that? I surely dont. Mdiehl's comments about Jap type 93 issues are
simply another attempt to weaken the IJN.

The truth is that it will hardly matter, because most will be sunk by airpower.
Usually in port, I may add. Anyone who has actually played the game knows this.

I believe damage control issues are already modeled in the game engine.

[Klahn]

ORIGINAL: Lanconic

My point in all this is.... If you have a hidden agenda, you can always find some issue
to achieve it. If any of you actually read, about high speed collisions during the war,
(of the USN) you would get an idea that they just might be accident prone.

Do you want to model that? I surely dont. Mdiehl's comments about Jap type 93 issues are
simply another attempt to weaken the IJN.

The truth is that it will hardly matter, because most will be sunk by airpower.
Usually in port, I may add. Anyone who has actually played the game knows this.

I believe damage control issues are already modeled in the game engine.

Mdiehl was not the person who brought up the issue. Trying to write off this issue by bringing up what you know about Mdiehl is not fair to the person who originally asked about it. Or are you accusing rockmedic and I of having a hidden agenda too?

I would be happy to model ship collisions if they had a significant impact on USN ship operations during the war or even immediately before or after the war. The type 93 was responsible for a significant proportion of Japanese CA losses during the war. Rockmedic posted a bunch of facts about the type 93 issue. Mdiehl posted more facts about these losses. I didn't just blindly trust him. I looked up the facts myself. It turned out they were right. In my opinion, the issues with the type 93 torpedo are significant enough to be added to the game. Because it is late in the development process, it's too late to add them. I'm cool with that. I will find a way to add them myself. That's the beauty of a game that is open to modding.

We can't automatically dismiss an argument by anyone just because Mdiehl happens to agree with them. I have absolutely no loyalty to the Imperial or Allied side in this game. I assure you I have no hidden agenda whatsoever. In fact, when this game comes out, I'll likely be starting a PBEM as the Japanese player. I don't read these forums religiously. I had no idea about the history of Terminus and Mdiehl as posters here. I happen to be stuck in a hotel away from home on business and I'm reading up to pass the time.

[Lanconic]

ORIGINAL: Ryvan




Mdiehl was not the person who brought up the issue. Trying to write off this issue by bringing up what you know about Mdiehl is not fair to the person who originally asked about it. Or are you accusing rockmedic and I of having a hidden agenda too?

I would be happy to model ship collisions if they had a significant impact on USN ship operations during the war or even immediately before or after the war. The type 93 was responsible for a significant proportion of Japanese CA losses during the war. Rockmedic posted a bunch of facts about the type 93 issue. Mdiehl posted more facts about these losses. I didn't just blindly trust him. I looked up the facts myself. It turned out they were right. In my opinion, the issues with the type 93 torpedo are significant enough to be added to the game. Because it is late in the development process, it's too late to add them. I'm cool with that. I will find a way to add them myself. That's the beauty of a game that is open to modding.

We can't automatically dismiss an argument by anyone just because Mdiehl happens to agree with them. I have absolutely no loyalty to the Imperial or Allied side in this game. I assure you I have no hidden agenda whatsoever. In fact, when this game comes out, I'll likely be starting a PBEM as the Japanese player. I don't read these forums religiously. I had no idea about the history of Terminus and Mdiehl as posters here. I happen to be stuck in a hotel away from home on business and I'm reading up to pass the time.

The problem with that is manyfold and a digression. I dont know you, so I wont comment.
I do know Mdiehl. He will attack me with equal verve if I made some point he didnt like.
I CAN dismiss an argument simply because Mdiehl promotes it.
Because he HAS an agenda. I dont agree with his agenda.

The paucity of his comments about the errors of the USN stand in mute testimony to his ongoing agenda. To postulate one side as immaculate and the other as inept, is hardly
an objective view.

[jwilkerson]

Well I'll offer an opinion of my own - that this thread lost any value it might have had somewhere around the 3rd post - give or take a post or two. So we will put it out of its misery.