maddogdrivethru.net

Open all night
It is currently Tue Aug 22, 2017 5:18 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 151 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 ... 16  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Pamak's responses to the "Pamak free thread comments"
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 5:58 am 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 7:44 am
Posts: 10446
Reputation points: 10757
chijohnaok wrote:
(As information to others, EU's IJN kicked my US ass in an email game of UV).

Good times. 8-)


Hit hard, hit fast. The IJN motto. :D

IIRC there was a lot of luck in the carrier battles that went the IJ's way. I also recall a LOT of shore bombardment of Guadalcanal... Yamato even!

"Use it or lose it".

_________________
“The gap in EU finances arising from the United Kingdom’s withdrawal and from the financing needs of new priorities need to be clearly acknowledged.” - Mario Monti


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pamak's responses to the "Pamak free thread comments"
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:03 am 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 7:44 am
Posts: 10446
Reputation points: 10757
jack t ripper wrote:
UV was fun. WITP-AE is crack. :)

Currently loading platoons of engineers on beat up PBY's to fly to tiny footholds in the Solomons while the Commonwealth troops are being slaughtered by the thousands by eight Japanese divisions in Australia. :lol:

Kingfishers on bombing run. Uglofortresses. Ahh..what geeky pleasures.


The problem with WITP is that playing Japan in it is just beyond my meagre powers. I give anybody who plays IJ in that the utmost respect.

_________________
“The gap in EU finances arising from the United Kingdom’s withdrawal and from the financing needs of new priorities need to be clearly acknowledged.” - Mario Monti


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pamak's responses to the "Pamak free thread comments"
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 10:57 am 
Offline
First Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:06 pm
Posts: 8512
Location: inside your worst nightmare
Reputation points: 9548
EUBanana wrote:
jack t ripper wrote:
UV was fun. WITP-AE is crack. :)

Currently loading platoons of engineers on beat up PBY's to fly to tiny footholds in the Solomons while the Commonwealth troops are being slaughtered by the thousands by eight Japanese divisions in Australia. :lol:

Kingfishers on bombing run. Uglofortresses. Ahh..what geeky pleasures.


The problem with WITP is that playing Japan in it is just beyond my meagre powers. I give anybody who plays IJ in that the utmost respect.


A UI and graphics from 1987 = pain, no matter how good the game is.

Some people have a very high pain tolerance.

_________________
Nero: So what is your challenge?

Anthro: Answer question #2: How do "Climate Change models" mathematically control for the natural forces which caused the Ice Age(s) to come and go . . . repeatedly?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pamak's responses to the "Pamak free thread comments"
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 11:04 am 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 3:19 pm
Posts: 22646
Reputation points: 14860
The UI is poor...no doubt. Graphics don't matter as long as the map is good, which it is.

The Japan-mens economy is truly epically painful. Playing Japan in a team game. Had a few mis-starts for sure. You can't do everything at the same time like you can when US production builds up steam.

_________________
I haven't figured out how to the block thingy works but if anyone alters my posts I will become really, really angry and throw monkey poop out of my cage.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pamak's responses to the "Pamak free thread comments"
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 11:20 am 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 7:44 am
Posts: 10446
Reputation points: 10757
jack t ripper wrote:
The UI is poor...no doubt. Graphics don't matter as long as the map is good, which it is.


True, though I have to say the dire graphics of Matrix fare has pretty much killed my desire to play their stuff. I'm just not interested much in yet another game where I get to herd badly rendered counters across the Eastern Front, when I could be playing Steel Division: Normandy.

_________________
“The gap in EU finances arising from the United Kingdom’s withdrawal and from the financing needs of new priorities need to be clearly acknowledged.” - Mario Monti


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pamak's responses to the "Pamak free thread comments"
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 12:05 pm 
Offline
First Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:06 pm
Posts: 8512
Location: inside your worst nightmare
Reputation points: 9548
Artists are require wages, and lots of artists require lots of wages and the very best artists require the very best wages. Bethesda or Ubisoft can worry about that . . .

Stick figures . . . even I can "draw" those and I'm cheap.

But in between pixelated low-rest static stick figures and 3-dimensional full-motion elf princesses where you can see each sweat bead as it glides between her cleavage there is a gigantic, enormous continuum. Matrix seems to think they can still make money at the low-res end of the continuum and apparently they can. But who knows how much money they are "leaving on the table" by not trying much at all to shift in step-wise fashion toward the sweaty elf boobs.

And that doesn't say anything about UI/UX which basically just requires ONE person who gives it a try!

_________________
Nero: So what is your challenge?

Anthro: Answer question #2: How do "Climate Change models" mathematically control for the natural forces which caused the Ice Age(s) to come and go . . . repeatedly?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pamak's responses to the "Pamak free thread comments"
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 12:08 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2008 12:33 pm
Posts: 19180
Reputation points: 11032
I can live with badly rendered counters if the basic consim is good. My problem with UV and WitP, and also most other consims, is that the research is shit. It's insufficient to know the names of ships or how many guns were in Unit X if you don't have the least clue about the results those things tended to produce.

WitP is married to the "EXP" model of combat resolution, and that model is not only NOT well researched (the EXP values are arbitrary Axis Fanboy nonsense), it's also not a good model to begin with. The lesson from WW2 is that SUFFICIENTLY trained persons with SUPERIOR tech consistently and far more often "win" against massively trained/experienced persons with inferior tech. The other lesson is of course logistics, logistics, logistics, to which WitP and most consims pay mere lip-service, except where they get it flat out wrong.

Shit strategy/grand-strategy WW2 games that I have owned, played, and given, thrown, or traded away:

Advanced Third Reich (AH)
World in Flames (ADG)
"Advanced" WW2: ETO (Decision)
A World at War (GMT)
UV (Matrix)
War in Russia (GG/SSI)

Of those AWAW was the worst. It was idiotically conceived, idiotically written, idiotically detailed, chose an idiotic time scale, and idiotically tried to blend the look and feel of tactical combat into 3-month game turns. The economic and research models are idiotic. The political models and assumptions, when they have any, are idiotic. The combat mechanics are idiotic. Most of the stats (combat value, move, range) are idiotic. And the details are most often completely wrong when it comes down to specific named ships.

I have found one good grand strategy consim for the ETO: Totaler Krieg (Decision)
I have found one relatively good grand strategy consim for the PTO: WW2:PTO (SPI version... not "Advanced" PTO by Decision Games).

That's it. Based on the ignorance that is so obvious among many game designers, it's a waste of time hoping for someone to write a game that gets even the basic relative power projection relationships right.

_________________
"Fuck the king." - Sandor Clegane

"And the story was whatever was the song what it was." - Dire Straits


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pamak's responses to the "Pamak free thread comments"
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 12:12 pm 
Offline
First Sergeant

Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 1:49 pm
Posts: 8914
Reputation points: 13207
Quote:
UnderCoverNotChickenSalad


:lol:

Holy crap that was a long time ago

_________________
"Stay deplorable my friends"


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pamak's responses to the "Pamak free thread comments"
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 12:20 pm 
Offline
First Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:06 pm
Posts: 8512
Location: inside your worst nightmare
Reputation points: 9548
mdiehl wrote:
I can live with badly rendered counters if the basic consim is good. My problem with UV and WitP, and also most other consims, is that the research is shit. It's insufficient to know the names of ships or how many guns were in Unit X if you don't have the least clue about the results those things tended to produce.

WitP is married to the "EXP" model of combat resolution, and that model is not only NOT well researched (the EXP values are arbitrary Axis Fanboy nonsense), it's also not a good model to begin with. The lesson from WW2 is that SUFFICIENTLY trained persons with SUPERIOR tech consistently and far more often "win" against massively trained/experienced persons with inferior tech. The other lesson is of course logistics, logistics, logistics, to which WitP and most consims pay mere lip-service, except where they get it flat out wrong.

Shit strategy/grand-strategy WW2 games that I have owned, played, and given, thrown, or traded away:

Advanced Third Reich (AH)
World in Flames (ADG)
"Advanced" WW2: ETO (Decision)
A World at War (GMT)
UV (Matrix)
War in Russia (GG/SSI)

Of those AWAW was the worst. It was idiotically conceived, idiotically written, idiotically detailed, chose an idiotic time scale, and idiotically tried to blend the look and feel of tactical combat into 3-month game turns. The economic and research models are idiotic. The political models and assumptions, when they have any, are idiotic. The combat mechanics are idiotic. Most of the stats (combat value, move, range) are idiotic. And the details are most often completely wrong when it comes down to specific named ships.

I have found one good grand strategy consim for the ETO: Totaler Krieg (Decision)
I have found one relatively good grand strategy consim for the PTO: WW2:PTO (SPI version... not "Advanced" PTO by Decision Games).

That's it. Based on the ignorance that is so obvious among many game designers, it's a waste of time hoping for someone to write a game that gets even the basic relative power projection relationships right.


Against my better judgement . . . could you be more specific?

I agree that, many games (WiTP included, and to a somewhat lesser extent WitPAE), in many genres do not seem to have even tried to validate their modeling and this is a shame because it would seem that it shouldn't be that hard.

Set up tests with AI vs. AI. Run tests, repeatedly. See if results fit with expectations. If they don't adjust mechanics.

If you start that process at the beginning of design, and start with the least inclusive elements and validate how things work at the lowest levels first, then work your way up . . . well then, you've pretty much followed the same principles as how mechanical or electronic machines are "engineered" and that would seem to be about the best that could be done.

I blame it on the developmental roots of video gaming: pong, tetris, space invaders, etc.

From the outset, computer games were not meant to be "simulations" they were meant to be beguiling, and it seems that few developers have really shaken that ethos. With good reason too, because a game that truly achieves a high threshold of naturalism without ALSO achieving a sufficient threshold of beguiling is liable to be a commercial bomb. Just like any business, designers and publishers have tended to take the "less risky path."

_________________
Nero: So what is your challenge?

Anthro: Answer question #2: How do "Climate Change models" mathematically control for the natural forces which caused the Ice Age(s) to come and go . . . repeatedly?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pamak's responses to the "Pamak free thread comments"
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 12:51 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2008 12:33 pm
Posts: 19180
Reputation points: 11032
Quote:
Against my better judgement . . . could you be more specific?


I could be. What do you need to know?

Consider AWAW. It has named ships, including CVs. The researchers claim that 1 point of land based air represents about 100 aircraft. You can't be sure though because the slippery "out" is usually "about what 100 a.c. could achieve if reasonably trained and considering the theater, and other intangibles" (which, translated, means "We refuse to be held accountable for our assumptions.")

Now, that 100 a.c. can be broken down into three subunits of "about 30 a.c. each" for the purpose of attacking enemy ships, and for the purpose of putting a.c. onto CVs. OK. So an early war USN CV should have about 75 a.c. or about 2 squadrons (fractions rounded down) or 3 (rounded naturally). A mid-late war USN CV should have a solid 3 squadrons each time. A German CV should have 1 or 2. Most Japanese CVs should have 2 (consider Hiryu: 64 a.c., Soryu: 63, vs USS Yorktown CV-5: 90 as built, more if it had lived to late war). Yet all of them have 3. It's a 33% favorable rounding error for the Axis, given the openly stated assumption that one Naval Air Factor represents "about 30 planes."

Consider the Battle of the Atlantic. The allies build 'transports' to move "Economic Points" but have to use "DD factors" to move combat troops. The allies have to build separate ships called "ASW" to attack submarines in strategic warfare. DDs can't do that. So, basically, transports can't move people, DDs can't attack submarines in "strategic warfare" (which is how the BoA is handled). Ummm... OK. You can "convert" DDs to ASW factors at a ratio of 3:1. Kill 3 DDs and replace it with one ASW factor. The rationale for all of this is that "In AWAW, a 'DD' is not a destroyer or destroyer group, like a DesRon, it's a bunch of light ships that includes both actual DDs and actual transports. OK. Only, when you convert 3 DD factors to one ASW factor, you don't also get to claim 2 Transport factors. Those are just lost. Who knows wtf the game designers imagines that all of that simulates.

But wait... in tactical combat resolution, one "DD factor" IS in fact just destroyers and THEN they can attack submarines if submarines are involved in the tactical combat. ASW factors, however, can not be used in tactical combat to attack submarines, despite the fact that those are supposedly dedicated groups of escort type vessels that exist solely to attack submarines.

The net effect is that the USA in particular, which starts out massively shortchanged on actual shipyard capacity, has to build three different kinds of "light vessels" (which are limited to one point out of every three shipyard capacity, fru) to do whatever clusterfuck thing the game designer imagines to be involved in the basic process of attacking submarines and carrying people and supplies.

That game has thousands of equally clusterfuck, bass-ackwards rules and assumptions. It's a shining example of massive stupidity and ignorance concealed by heaps of barely-navigable, poorly written rules.

_________________
"Fuck the king." - Sandor Clegane

"And the story was whatever was the song what it was." - Dire Straits


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 151 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 ... 16  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group