Production

[pad152]

We now have three or more different ways things get produced in AE.

1.Factories
2.Rate of Replacement
3.Supply Rules for making Torpedoes (same or different for midget subs, PT's, Barges?)
Mines? Not yet implemented

Why not just bite the bullet and do a single production system! Create one or more factory for each of these devices. In the long run this has got to be easier than trying to keep the all of the above rules straight. Allow us to define factories and what they build (any device) with the editor. Then we can build what we want and send it where we want it. Plus this will give bombers more targets![:D]

[wworld7]

Something along these lines will could happen in WITP-2.

IMO, from what has been said in the past, this is not part of the WITP-AE project.

[Dili]

Well i expect that Witp 2 will have node based editor where math operations and linking can be done by players and even nodes programmed...[:D][:D][:D]

[Yamato hugger]

Well as far as production is concerned no one will ever be 100% happy with it. Its either too detailed or not detailed enough - "I want to be able to switch between machine gun bullets and pistol ammo damnit!"

Some decisions have to be made (and thankfully I am not one of those that have to make them decisions).

And while I am on that subject I would like to say to those that do that I dont envy your position. While I may disagree with you and fight tooth and nail on some points, I do respect the position that you are in having to make those decisions.

[pad152]

It's not about detail but, more and more rules and all the different ways things are being produced in AE. Why have 3 or 4 different ways to produce stuff and all the rules to go with them, when you can reduce it to 1?

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: pad152

It's not about detail but, more and more rules and all the different ways things are being produced in AE. Why have 3 or 4 different ways to produce stuff and all the rules to go with them, when you can reduce it to 1?

The three ways you mention above are already present in stock - no new ways have been added. We discussed switching to full production system, for both sides, early in the project, but this idea was axed. Of course it remains an option for WITP-2.

[pad152]

We didn't have supply rules for making torpedoes, midget subs, and now maybe mines in WITP. I'm concerned all the new rules for all these plus existing rules for barges seem to be making AE alot more complex/obtuse than it should be!

[Yamato hugger]

You dont "produce" torps. They are limited in how many you can use on a carrier without refueling. Midget subs work exactly like PT and barge production. Mines will work like they do now, but ammo limits to keep 20,000 mine blobs from occurring.

All the above is easily tweeked either in mods and/or patches down the road. Testing isnt going to reveal all the problems with a new game. There is going to be some tweeking. No one will ever be happy with everything.

[pad152]

You don't produce torpedoes, Huh! I thought you clicked a button to traded X# of supply for X# of torpedoes for land bases?

[Yamato hugger]

Correct. How is that really different than what is going on now (other than >IMHO< a lot of needless clicking)? The only thing really different about it than what is going on now is if you arent in range of an air HQ, you cant carry torps.

[pad152]

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

Correct. How is that really different than what is going on now (other than >IMHO< a lot of needless clicking)? The only thing really different about it than what is going on now is if you arent in range of an air HQ, you cant carry torps.

How is that different? The question is, will it be the same? If you keep the rules the same for each different device (torp, barge, midget, etc.) then I don't have an issue. You don't have to be in range of an HQ to create barges in WITP, that would be different than the way torpedoes are created in AE, it's that little difference in the rules that create confusion!

[Yamato hugger]

There is going to be confusion - count on it. Lots of things are subtly different but look the same.

If the WitP learning curve is a cliff, the AE learning curve is sailing off the edge of the earth.

[pad152]

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

There is going to be confusion - count on it. Lots of things are subtly different but look the same.

If the WitP learning curve is a cliff, the AE learning curve is sailing off the edge of the earth.

Yea, but does it have to be? [8|]

[Dili]

Lot's of problems with Witp were the clumsy manual.

[Yamato hugger]

Well one problem with WitP is the numbers of changes to the game after the manual was written and the manual wasnt updated. Even in AE some things that were originally written in the manual may have changed. Hopefully the guys doing that part catch them all, but mistakes do happen.

[madgamer2]

[quote]ORIGINAL: pad152

We now have three or more different ways things get produced in AE.

1.Factories
2.Rate of Replacement
3.Supply Rules for making Torpedoes (same or different for midget subs, PT's, Barges?)
Mines? Not yet implemented

Why not just bite the bullet and do a single production system! Create one or more factory for each of these devices. In the long run this has got to be easier than trying to keep the all of the above rules straight. Allow us to define factories and what they build (any device) with the editor. Then we can build what we want and send it where we want it. Plus this will give bombers more targets![:D]


I only speak for the small minority of player I am sure (maybe just me LOL) but some of us do no do well with production rules and creating a computer routine to run it would be a difficult thing.
There could be a point for some of us where trying to control a large number of things would get to a point where it is just not worth it to play the game. I get the idea that most want some kind of Pacific war game where the player can control every nut, bolt, bread loaf, bullet, torpedo,and God knows what else....Am I the only one who thinks that it is possible to over simulate a game such as this?

Madgamer

[bradfordkay]

madgamer wrote: "Am I the only one who thinks that it is possible to over simulate a game such as this?"

No, you're not the only one - but you are in the minority among the regulars on this forum! [;)]

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

madgamer wrote: "Am I the only one who thinks that it is possible to over simulate a game such as this?"

No, you're not the only one - but you are in the minority among the regulars on this forum! [;)]

Micromanagement can be overdone, especially in a game. For example, the logistics system is properly the responsibility of the game engine--things can be set up so you get more realism with less need for user intervention--but to do that requires a game architect who has actually built and managed a logistics system in real life, and I doubt most game designers have that background. (The only way I could play CNA was by setting up the logistics system the way a professional would organise it, and with the knobs the professional would use to control it.)

[herwin]

I might add that simulating logistics in too much detail is actually counterproductive--a forward Euler model of a system of flows (which is what a logistics system really is) can be shown to be prone to unrealistic fluctuations. You need step back and go Crank-Nicholson, and that's over the head of the typical game designer. Trust the local operators and managers to damp out the fluctuations and think like a theater logistics commander.

[JWE]

Wow, really? Computational complexity would be pretty big; how large is your O number … woof !!

I would have thought you’d use finite variance. That lets you ignore prompt time response and define long term time variations as a simple Poisson distribution. Then you could define all the different variables in terms of a rotational vector matrix and get a well defined, and well structured surface. No multiple matrix manipulations to do.

It’s kinda like people using finite element for diffusion; even though it’s not quite as precise, it’s a lot more easily modeled and it works, on a practical basis.

John