Page 1 of 2
CHS drifts off into La La Land
Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 10:30 am
by herwin
In my current PBEM (CHS 2.0.8, 159), we just had a turn where:
A massive torpedo attack (G4M1) was launched from Bandjermasin against a pair of innocent APs docked at Christmas Island.
A massive airstrike (Zeros, Vals, and torpedo lugging Kates) from the KB in the Java Sea against two Q-ships at sea 240 miles south of Tjilitjap.
Meanwhile the replay bug emerges for the first time in this game and bites hard--IJN TFs make knight's jumps all over the map, and I get blank combat reports from Palembang.
Would some of the assembled experts provide their analysis of what's going on?
RE: CHS drifts off into La La Land
Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 11:48 am
by Andrew Brown
ORIGINAL: herwin
Would some of the assembled experts provide their analysis of what's going on?
Well, I am no expert, but how the WitP AI is programmed is a mystery to me...
Andrew
RE: CHS drifts off into La La Land
Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 12:32 pm
by herwin
ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown
ORIGINAL: herwin
Would some of the assembled experts provide their analysis of what's going on?
Well, I am no expert, but how the WitP AI is programmed is a mystery to me...
Andrew
Some of this is AI, and some is simply in violation of what the manual says. The two torpedo attacks were at extended range, one past Point Bingo and the other one at about that range. The manual claims extended range attacks utilise reduced loads of bombs instead of torpedoes. It looks like the manual lies.
RE: CHS drifts off into La La Land
Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 12:34 pm
by DuckofTindalos
Saying that it "lies" implies premeditation, i.e. a willful act on the part of the developers to mislead the end users. I think that's probably a pretty stupid thing to say.
RE: CHS drifts off into La La Land
Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 1:12 pm
by Mike Scholl
ORIGINAL: Terminus
Saying that it "lies" implies premeditation, i.e. a willful act on the part of the developers to mislead the end users. I think that's probably a pretty stupid thing to say.
It might not be willfull, but if the manual says one thing and the game does another then the manual is certainly guilty of a falsehood..., ie. a lie.
RE: CHS drifts off into La La Land
Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 3:19 pm
by Nikademus
a "Lie" implies malicious intent.
a manual error is a 'mistake'
The manual however in this case is neither "lying" or "mistaken" An airbase at < size 4 will give extended range loadouts for 2E bombers. If an attack was lauched from such and torps were reported used then there must be another explanation.
P.S. grow up people.
RE: CHS drifts off into La La Land
Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 3:48 pm
by TheElf
I'm not sure how you can blame an order of battle mod for game mechanic buffoonery. CHS doesn't tweak anything by diddling with the database to trick-F the system. If you are having these problems they are likely resident in the the WitP engine.
As far as the Carrier strike, (correct me if I am wrong T/Nik), If your KB is floating around in it's usual state of readiness then any enemy TF floating around in range is going to trigger a response. If two Q-ships are all that is available to attack then that is what will happen. The CV combat rooutine does not discriminate the size or type of TF. It just launches. The only way you might affect the size of a strike would be to set more Torp and DB aircraft to ASW or naval search. But then you run the risk of stumbling upon a TF you need a maximum effort against. Pick your poison....
NONE of this is affected by CHS.
RE: CHS drifts off into La La Land
Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 4:03 pm
by herwin
ORIGINAL: Nikademus
a "Lie" implies malicious intent.
a manual error is a 'mistake'
The manual however in this case is neither "lying" or "mistaken" An airbase at < size 4 will give extended range loadouts for 2E bombers. If an attack was lauched from such and torps were reported used then there must be another explanation.
P.S. grow up people.
It's a size 4 airfield in CHS, although not in reality. However the problem is that the Bettys were given a torpedo loadout at extended range.
The problem with the KB attack is that the ships were past Point Bingo for the airstrike. At least the Kates should have splashed.
I was working the system the way I was trained professionally. You take every edge you can, and the edges are so important that they are usually classified TS. I can understand intel data being in error, but the game data is not intel. If the game engine plays with the game data that way, I certainly hope it gives the Japanese player some similar surprises.
RE: CHS drifts off into La La Land
Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 4:05 pm
by Nikademus
If only a small TF is around, then usually the carrier TF will respond with an appropriate sized strike (usually smaller) at least in the case of small multiple (non CV) TF's. If the TF was alone it may get a massive strike
RE: CHS drifts off into La La Land
Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 4:06 pm
by Nikademus
If you think the game is malfunctioning then i suggest you send the save to Joe Wilkerson so that he can examine the strike. This would be more useful then suggesting that the manual "lies"
RE: CHS drifts off into La La Land
Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 4:20 pm
by el cid again
As a former electronic warfare deception specialist, I can testify that a computer never "lies" in a technical sense.
Sometimes we humans use that word when we are decieved by a machine error of various kinds, and sometimes humans can indeed program a machine to create a false impression - but it is certain that no game programmer would ever do that (except related to training operators about deception) - it would not be useful or profitable to do such a thing on purpose.
As a person who has written code - all the way down to machine code - I can also testify that any program of significant length is very hard to understand - if you wrote it! It is terribly easy to get things happening you did not intend, and almost impossible to get exactly what you wanted, no matter how carefully you plan and organize. In this age, the kind of planning once normal in the US (and even more in the USSR) is gone: this is the age of sphagetti code, modularization run wild, for lots of sound reasons - but with the tragic side effect that no one knows how things really work. The closest to knowing lies with techncal testers and operators - and knowing is not the same thing as wanting, planning, liking, etc.
Commercial code suffers from the horrible technical problem of cost limits on testing: if the vast majority of your software budget is not spent on testing it is bound to be buggy. But Matrix does it the other way around - and All Glory to Matrix for it. In spite of the technical problem of bugs, Matrix is profitable, and for that reason able to survive when other companies die in this hard to serve market. Any company that is not profitable will not be around to support past products or generate new products.
Complaining or believeing bugs are somehow intended is not germane to reality. You can have no products, or buggy products, but not perfect products - no matter how much you spend. Where to draw the line is a matter of judgement - and that judgement properly belongs to cost accountants - not to any of us. UNLESS you are willing to do (what one guy did) - call up Matrix and say "how much does it cost to do this - I will write a check" - be happy with what we get. Or not and stop playing/modding.
RE: CHS drifts off into La La Land
Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 4:26 pm
by treespider
ORIGINAL: herwin
In my current PBEM (CHS 2.0.8, 159), we just had a turn where:
A massive torpedo attack (G4M1) was launched from Bandjermasin against a pair of innocent APs docked at Christmas Island.
Bandjermasin starts as a Level 3, any chance it could have been expanded without your knowledge? In addition it is only 13 hexes to Christmas...check out the range on the G4M1 and you will find normal range is 13 hexes.
A massive airstrike (Zeros, Vals, and torpedo lugging Kates) from the KB in the Java Sea against two Q-ships at sea 240 miles south of Tjilitjap.
Need more info on this one...what is the range from the Q-ships to the CV TF in the Java Sea? Were they 240 miles south (as you would refer to south as being down) on the game map or 240 miles south (which appears west on the game map)?
RE: CHS drifts off into La La Land
Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 5:40 pm
by herwin
ORIGINAL: Nikademus
If only a small TF is around, then usually the carrier TF will respond with an appropriate sized strike (usually smaller) at least in the case of small multiple (non CV) TF's. If the TF was alone it may get a massive strike
These were the only games in town.
RE: CHS drifts off into La La Land
Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 5:42 pm
by herwin
ORIGINAL: Nikademus
If you think the game is malfunctioning then i suggest you send the save to Joe Wilkerson so that he can examine the strike. This would be more useful then suggesting that the manual "lies"
Joe, how do you want it? I can forward the turn with my password. It's CHS 2.08, scenario 159, so it's non-standard. It's also bit by the replay bug.
RE: CHS drifts off into La La Land
Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 5:46 pm
by TheElf
ORIGINAL: el cid again
As a former electronic warfare deception specialist, I can testify that a computer never "lies" in a technical sense.
Sometimes we humans use that word when we are decieved by a machine error of various kinds, and sometimes humans can indeed program a machine to create a false impression - but it is certain that no game programmer would ever do that (except related to training operators about deception) - it would not be useful or profitable to do such a thing on purpose.
As a person who has written code - all the way down to machine code - I can also testify that any program of significant length is very hard to understand - if you wrote it! It is terribly easy to get things happening you did not intend, and almost impossible to get exactly what you wanted, no matter how carefully you plan and organize. In this age, the kind of planning once normal in the US (and even more in the USSR) is gone: this is the age of sphagetti code, modularization run wild, for lots of sound reasons - but with the tragic side effect that no one knows how things really work. The closest to knowing lies with techncal testers and operators - and knowing is not the same thing as wanting, planning, liking, etc.
Commercial code suffers from the horrible technical problem of cost limits on testing: if the vast majority of your software budget is not spent on testing it is bound to be buggy. But Matrix does it the other way around - and All Glory to Matrix for it. In spite of the technical problem of bugs, Matrix is profitable, and for that reason able to survive when other companies die in this hard to serve market. Any company that is not profitable will not be around to support past products or generate new products.
Complaining or believeing bugs are somehow intended is not germane to reality. You can have no products, or buggy products, but not perfect products - no matter how much you spend. Where to draw the line is a matter of judgement - and that judgement properly belongs to cost accountants - not to any of us. UNLESS you are willing to do (what one guy did) - call up Matrix and say "how much does it cost to do this - I will write a check" - be happy with what we get. Or not and stop playing/modding.
I find this response funny. Given Herwin's title in his tag line...
RE: CHS drifts off into La La Land
Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 5:51 pm
by herwin
ORIGINAL: el cid again
As a former electronic warfare deception specialist, I can testify that a computer never "lies" in a technical sense.
Sometimes we humans use that word when we are decieved by a machine error of various kinds, and sometimes humans can indeed program a machine to create a false impression - but it is certain that no game programmer would ever do that (except related to training operators about deception) - it would not be useful or profitable to do such a thing on purpose.
As a person who has written code - all the way down to machine code - I can also testify that any program of significant length is very hard to understand - if you wrote it! It is terribly easy to get things happening you did not intend, and almost impossible to get exactly what you wanted, no matter how carefully you plan and organize. In this age, the kind of planning once normal in the US (and even more in the USSR) is gone: this is the age of sphagetti code, modularization run wild, for lots of sound reasons - but with the tragic side effect that no one knows how things really work. The closest to knowing lies with techncal testers and operators - and knowing is not the same thing as wanting, planning, liking, etc.
Commercial code suffers from the horrible technical problem of cost limits on testing: if the vast majority of your software budget is not spent on testing it is bound to be buggy. But Matrix does it the other way around - and All Glory to Matrix for it. In spite of the technical problem of bugs, Matrix is profitable, and for that reason able to survive when other companies die in this hard to serve market. Any company that is not profitable will not be around to support past products or generate new products.
Complaining or believeing bugs are somehow intended is not germane to reality. You can have no products, or buggy products, but not perfect products - no matter how much you spend. Where to draw the line is a matter of judgement - and that judgement properly belongs to cost accountants - not to any of us. UNLESS you are willing to do (what one guy did) - call up Matrix and say "how much does it cost to do this - I will write a check" - be happy with what we get. Or not and stop playing/modding.
Actually, I could do that--I'm a retired system architect (early retirement) with a number of successes to my name. I teach and do neuroscience for love, not money. The complaint is about the manual, not the code.
RE: CHS drifts off into La La Land
Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 6:50 pm
by Nikademus
ORIGINAL: TheElf
I find this response funny. Given Herwin's title in his tag line...
Not to mention overly verbose.
RE: CHS drifts off into La La Land
Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 6:59 pm
by herwin
ORIGINAL: Nikademus
ORIGINAL: TheElf
I find this response funny. Given Herwin's title in his tag line...
Not to mention overly verbose.
[:'(]
The main website is
here.
This might interest the wargamers.
RE: CHS drifts off into La La Land
Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 7:05 pm
by el cid again
ORIGINAL: herwin
ORIGINAL: el cid again
As a former electronic warfare deception specialist, I can testify that a computer never "lies" in a technical sense.
Sometimes we humans use that word when we are decieved by a machine error of various kinds, and sometimes humans can indeed program a machine to create a false impression - but it is certain that no game programmer would ever do that (except related to training operators about deception) - it would not be useful or profitable to do such a thing on purpose.
As a person who has written code - all the way down to machine code - I can also testify that any program of significant length is very hard to understand - if you wrote it! It is terribly easy to get things happening you did not intend, and almost impossible to get exactly what you wanted, no matter how carefully you plan and organize. In this age, the kind of planning once normal in the US (and even more in the USSR) is gone: this is the age of sphagetti code, modularization run wild, for lots of sound reasons - but with the tragic side effect that no one knows how things really work. The closest to knowing lies with techncal testers and operators - and knowing is not the same thing as wanting, planning, liking, etc.
Commercial code suffers from the horrible technical problem of cost limits on testing: if the vast majority of your software budget is not spent on testing it is bound to be buggy. But Matrix does it the other way around - and All Glory to Matrix for it. In spite of the technical problem of bugs, Matrix is profitable, and for that reason able to survive when other companies die in this hard to serve market. Any company that is not profitable will not be around to support past products or generate new products.
Complaining or believeing bugs are somehow intended is not germane to reality. You can have no products, or buggy products, but not perfect products - no matter how much you spend. Where to draw the line is a matter of judgement - and that judgement properly belongs to cost accountants - not to any of us. UNLESS you are willing to do (what one guy did) - call up Matrix and say "how much does it cost to do this - I will write a check" - be happy with what we get. Or not and stop playing/modding.
Actually, I could do that--I'm a retired system architect (early retirement) with a number of successes to my name. I teach and do neuroscience for love, not money. The complaint is about the manual, not the code.
I have proposed - openly and privately - that a technical manual be made - and sold as a product for modders (say $100 a copy). I stopped proposing it when I came to understand no one can write it. Or worse, that only someone like I could write it - and it would never be finished, complete or accurate in the sense we would like.
. The way WITP is organized (if that is the proper term) the code writers mostly know some tiny segment of it - and often they say things like "I have no idea how that works - I only know about xyz which I work on." A product of that sort would be possible only
a) If it was designed into the product from the beginning
b) If the code organization/philosophy were entirely different and oriented toward documentation (see some German language computer programs for an example, where documentation is PART of the code, and takes up to 5/6 of the lines)
c) A vastly greater amount of funding were feasible (which I cannot believe could be the case in this market)
IF there is to be some sort of tech manual for this - we must do it as a team effort - gratus - as a Forum Project. A foundation for it has been laid by AKWarrior's site.
RE: CHS drifts off into La La Land
Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 7:07 pm
by el cid again
ORIGINAL: Nikademus
ORIGINAL: TheElf
I find this response funny. Given Herwin's title in his tag line...
Not to mention overly verbose.
A USN psychiatric report once had only a single phrase that might be regarded as negative: it said I was
"slightly verbose." A friend/medical doctor - years later - wondered "why the qualifier 'slightly'?"