To michalem, A Request

[Bullwinkle58]

Today I started a new thread in the main forum concerning the r5 beta's changes to FOW. If you have a chance please read it, as it is long and I don't want to re-type it here. [:)]

I'd like to propose or begin a discussion about how we might as a group separate beta changes which are chrome or bug fixes from any which do, or might, alter game balance. As keeper of the code I know you share a desire to keep the game balanced despite frequent calls for changes this way or that. I believe that the FOW changes made in r5 affect the game significantly, and not only in terms of strat bombing. My reasoning is in that new thread.

I think a longer comment period and a highlighted thread about the change before code is put into a beta for such changes would allow more time for the community to bat around pros and cons. I don't know if a formal voting mechanism is feasible, or even beneficial, but I think more attention needs to be focused on some of the things being called for.

Specific to the FOW issue, my personal preference would be to take it back to the way it was, even if that is not "historical." However, if the gist of opinion is that FOW ought to be altered, I have some ideas how this might be done in a manner which doesn't whack the Allies around so severely, and might reuse some of the kami-activation code for an alternate purpose.

Just trying to get the conversation started.

[JeffroK]

May I suggest that this is why many wait for an official patch rather than the betas.

I think its a good change to investigate, but might have unexpected results.   I would likely have voted for the change but it now I am wavering in my support. 

Maybe this is the idea of the betas, to test run some ideas BUT many take them as fully tested and approved changes.

[Dan Nichols]

How it a change to be tested? Wouldn't that mean putting the change into a BETA version of the game code and having players test it? I thought that was what we were doing.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Dan Nichols

How it a change to be tested? Wouldn't that mean putting the change into a BETA version of the game code and having players test it? I thought that was what we were doing.

In theory. But in this case you have different balance issues if you put the FOW change into an on-going game in late 1943 versus starting a new one with it.

[oldman45]

After reading your threads in the main forum, I am not seeing an issue. I know its because I never looked at the AI to see what it was building. The Allies never had that type of intel so why use it. I like this change.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: oldman45

After reading your threads in the main forum, I am not seeing an issue. I know its because I never looked at the AI to see what it was building. The Allies never had that type of intel so why use it. I like this change.

+1

<with the caveat that the allies never had it, which I strongly suspect is true although I have no document or knowledge to support that suspicion.>

[JeffroK]

ORIGINAL: Dan Nichols

How it a change to be tested? Wouldn't that mean putting the change into a BETA version of the game code and having players test it? I thought that was what we were doing.

Great idea, set up a Beta and get guys to TEST it.

Not update the version being used in a long running PBEM, what if the testing found a problem? (It has happened in the past hasnt it, michaels looking at a fuel problem which might have been coded wrong in a beta)

Simple solution, TEST it, get out an official patch.

[Puhis]

I like this change too. These aircraft factories are not going to change much at that point of the game, so allied player have to figure out them only once (and remember them).

[michaelm75au]

I can lower the 'unkown factory' DL so it says the base type of factory, but having real-time info on factory production is not realistic without some sort of recon.
The OSS is not programmed into the game so we can't send them in to find out.[:)]

[edit]
As someone else mentioned, the slots in a base are already 'known' thru the Editor.
But not what actually is being produced there at a given time. (FOW)

Dropping the totally 'unknown', as an industry slot in a base has to be 'visible' to the enemy in order to see the slot anyway. The visibility is a function of the DL and has not changed since WITP.

Resource types would always be shown;
'Engine factory' would indicate some sort of aircraft engine;
'Aircraft factory' would indicate some sort of aircraft production;
'Armament factory' would indicate some sort of arms production;
'Shipyard ?' would indicate some sort of ship building;
Heavy, Light, Refinery and Ship repairyards would always be shown;

Higher DL will show what kind of engines or aircraft, is it Armaments or Vehicle arms production, is it naval or merchant ships building?

[JuanG]

I think that sounds like it would be a fair compromise.

[n01487477]

ORIGINAL: michaelm

I can lower the 'unkown factory' DL so it says the base type of factory, but having real-time info on factory production is not realistic without some sort of recon.
The OSS is not programmed into the game so we can't send them in to find out.[:)]

[edit]
As someone else mentioned, the slots in a base are already 'known' thru the Editor.
But not what actually is being produced there at a given time. (FOW)

Dropping the totally 'unknown', as an industry slot in a base has to be 'visible' to the enemy in order to see the slot anyway. The visibility is a function of the DL and has not changed since WITP.

Resource types would always be shown;
'Engine factory' would indicate some sort of aircraft engine;
'Aircraft factory' would indicate some sort of aircraft production;
'Armament factory' would indicate some sort of arms production;
'Shipyard ?' would indicate some sort of ship building;
Heavy, Light, Refinery and Ship repairyards would always be shown;

Higher DL will show what kind of engines or aircraft, is it Armaments or Vehicle arms production, is it naval or merchant ships building?

Sounds like a good compromise as long as this is the same for the strategic bombing interface. The numbers are subject to FOW as well - I guess.

[michaelm75au]

From the manual

10.4 INFORMATION GIVEN REGARDING ENEMY UNITS/BASES/MINEFIELDS
Production items have the DL of the base they are located at. All Factory information initially displayed in the rollover text for an enemy factory is 100% correct. This information will only be updated when the DL of a base increases. Thus, even though Tokyo could have expanded and converted many of their factories, until the first recon flight flies over Tokyo, the roll over text may show Tokyo with the production stats it had at the beginning of the scenario.

The above is from the manual, although not quite correct in that the initial production stats stay available, it does indicates that the player should not be getting real-time info until recon.
This would suggest (if I enforce the manual) that basing play on the first week of December 1941 for the entire game, the Allied player would be prone to some serious errors in planning.
My trying to introduce some fog into production is in response to this section of the manual as I can't really 'freeze' the mouseover until a recon. At least showing the base industry type partially satifies the manual until real recon is performed.

[edit]
Yes I am attempting to synchronsize manual and code in order to get an updated version available sometime.

[michaelm75au]

ORIGINAL: n01487477

ORIGINAL: michaelm

I can lower the 'unkown factory' DL so it says the base type of factory, but having real-time info on factory production is not realistic without some sort of recon.
The OSS is not programmed into the game so we can't send them in to find out.[:)]

[edit]
As someone else mentioned, the slots in a base are already 'known' thru the Editor.
But not what actually is being produced there at a given time. (FOW)

Dropping the totally 'unknown', as an industry slot in a base has to be 'visible' to the enemy in order to see the slot anyway. The visibility is a function of the DL and has not changed since WITP.

Resource types would always be shown;
'Engine factory' would indicate some sort of aircraft engine;
'Aircraft factory' would indicate some sort of aircraft production;
'Armament factory' would indicate some sort of arms production;
'Shipyard ?' would indicate some sort of ship building;
Heavy, Light, Refinery and Ship repairyards would always be shown;

Higher DL will show what kind of engines or aircraft, is it Armaments or Vehicle arms production, is it naval or merchant ships building?

Sounds like a good compromise as long as this is the same for the strategic bombing interface. The numbers are subject to FOW as well - I guess.

Yes, the same thing is shown in the City Attack screen.[:D] They both use a common text string so that when DL at base changes both see the updated text string.

[Nemo121]

Personally this seems like a move towards mroe realistic, plausible modelling of strategic bombing and the recon needed to go with it. It isn't perfect of course but it is definitely an improvement.

Some might argue that the change is unfair cause it benefits this side or that side. As someone who happily plays either side my only concern is whether or not the change moves the game towards greater accuracy. In my view this change does that and so I think it is up to players to deal with the consequences. I don't think "game balance" is a good reason to oppose this sort of model-improving change.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Personally this seems like a move towards mroe realistic, plausible modelling of strategic bombing and the recon needed to go with it. It isn't perfect of course but it is definitely an improvement.

Some might argue that the change is unfair cause it benefits this side or that side. As someone who happily plays either side my only concern is whether or not the change moves the game towards greater accuracy. In my view this change does that and so I think it is up to players to deal with the consequences. I don't think "game balance" is a good reason to oppose this sort of model-improving change.

+7

Excactly. I love it when someone writes my opinion so eloquently! [&o] Thanks Nemo.

[witpqs]

Agree with the last two and like the change you outlined, Michael. This is definitely an improvement from perfect Intel, and a little tweak being needed to the first Beta on something is fairly expected.

To the guys who are using the Beta but want it to be an official patch, I remind you that you don't have to upgrade to a new version of the Beta when it first comes out. You can download it and wait for other people to report in with feedback on whatever new changes are in the Beta.

[JeffroK]

I'm not disagreeing that while the Allies would have some idea being built at the base it wouldnt be perfect, therefore the change is OK for a starting game.

However players are not treating betas as they should, because the official patches are so far apart, and have been pretty clean, players are updating there PBEM games in mid stride.

To me, the circumstance of the change was more annoying than the change. Had the player suggested the need for a look at a change, but left his game at the previous beta it would have shown that indeed the betas were being TESTED and problems pointed out, not apparently being used to his advantage. This is what has soiled the upgrade.

Maybe to support michaelm there should be a group of players who are happy to have saves at various stages of the war who will test a beta before its released, it will slow the process but it might provide some insight into the effect of the changes.

[n01487477]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

I'm not disagreeing that while the Allies would have some idea being built at the base it wouldnt be perfect, therefore the change is OK for a starting game.

However players are not treating betas as they should, because the official patches are so far apart, and have been pretty clean, players are updating there PBEM games in mid stride.

To me, the circumstance of the change was more annoying than the change. Had the player suggested the need for a look at a change, but left his game at the previous beta it would have shown that indeed the betas were being TESTED and problems pointed out, not apparently being used to his advantage. This is what has soiled the upgrade.

Maybe to support michaelm there should be a group of players who are happy to have saves at various stages of the war who will test a beta before its released, it will slow the process but it might provide some insight into the effect of the changes.

As witpqs and you have stated, a beta, is a beta, is a beta. It is for TEST purposes, those using it for PBEM have to do their research and realise the consequences. If I were playing, I'd probably upgrade a few beta's behind and test the new stuff as it progressed.

Actually in Raders defence - it was I who requested it; both in the beta thread and for many months earlier(since witp). Rader was late to the party but his post was after mine..

There are no 'official' people any more, just us helping him. I've helped out from time to time as have many others I'm sure. There's probably not going to be a structure put in place unless MichealM does it, cause he wants / needs it. Otherwise it is up to all of us to test this and find issues to be resolved(bugs), and debate changes as they're made.

The problem with debating a new 'enhancement' before the fact is that you can't see what it'll do in most cases. Things requested that aren't chrome probably do need more debate time, I just don't see how that can happen unless MichaelM starts giving his list of things to do before the fact; something I doubt he has time for.So, in this very imperfect situation, the beta is a test ship of possibilities & debate needs to come after it. This is what has happened this week, Michael has been notified and changes have been made to the FOW issue. Not what everyone wants, but there has been some debate and changes made.

Some things probably needed more debate such as PP changes to airgroup upgrades off the upgrade path and lcu buy-backs. I'm not so much against the former (which can be altered with PP changes), but the latter in early-war (before the amphib bonus), should IMHO be nullified. It is a early game changer. Maybe the whole thing should be an option. Buying back troops and not doing cadre evacs changes the feel. Or maybe have it but much longer to reform. I don't know but there has not been enough debate about it except with Bullwinkle and a few others I've talked to.

So, I hope MichaelM continues to be open to debate and willing to back down / make changes if needs be. We rely on Michael to keep the game moving forward and I for one don't want him offside, but maybe if we the forum give him enough feedback then he can make a more informed decision of what to include or throw out. And if MichaelM could be more part of that discussion process, maybe opening channels of debate by outlining his plans before new game mechanics are changed, then so much the better. Maybe he thinks he is by including them in a beta [;)]Then and if not, it is up to us to test them, debate them, or bring these things to the table.

Debate is always going to rile people, let's keep it technical and non-partisan as much as possible and support Michael in the best way we can, by keeping him informed.

Which I see is happening with the pilot pool debate now [:)]
Cheers

[PaxMondo]

I do think he is able (and does) consult with some of the other devs on issues ... most are still around and active.&nbsp; Elf is about the only one (with good reason, God speed) who might be hard to contact ...