Something about 1.03 I'm worried about

[Jason Petho]

So, due to popular demand, Dogovich has adjusted the rules and these will be included in the 1.03 UPDATE.

Jason Petho

[Montana Grizz]

Does this mean that it will be yet another week before we get the new update????????

I'm getting sick and tired of playing the AI!!!!!!!!!!

Pat

[Jason Petho]

Does this mean that it will be yet another week before we get the new update????????

I'm getting sick and tired of playing the AI!!!!!!!!!!

Pat

No, I still plan on sending it to Matrix tomorrow.

Jason Petho

[XLVIII Pz. Korp]

So, due to popular demand, Dogovich has adjusted the rules and these will be included in the 1.03 UPDATE.

Jason Petho

Brilliant!! :bow:

IMO there are 2 ways to get it right. Both of them should be implemented.
1. to make it an optional rule
2. To make the visibilty per turn, a parameter in the scenario editor, so the designer can set the visibility per turn (a thing that is now already possible by manually editing the bte file).

Huib

Can Huib's suggestion still be implemented at a later time? :stir:

Earl, has been fun hasn't it?
Want to do a game some time? Been a while.

[Jason Petho]

Can Huib's suggestion still be implemented at a later time? :stir:

Not sure.

Jason Petho

[zeiss]

No, I still plan on sending it to Matrix tomorrow.

Doing a great job as usual Jason! :thumbs_up:

[XLVIII Pz. Korp]

Can Huib's suggestion still be implemented at a later time? :stir:

Not sure.

Jason Petho

Jason, just want to say again ALL of us appreciate the time and effort you and "the brigade" put into keeping this game going. All of you are "above and beyond"

Now for the next patch I'd really like to see the turrets of my vehicles turn to engage targets...

[Von Luck]

LOL 60 Earl soon be time for the zimmer frame.Yeah many this and that on visibilty on this one but i have to agree with you see how it goes if its not right then fix it.

[Dogovich]

My main guide for creating the compromise that I did is based pretty much on what the designers placed in the programming. The following gives an approximate to the weather conditions that are suppose to represented within the game:

Clear 18-20 Hex Overcast 15-17 hex Haze 10-14 Hex
Dust/LtSnow/LtRain 8-9 Hex Intense Heat Haze/Squals 6-7 hex
LtFog/ModDust 5 ThickFog/HvyRain/HvySnow 1-4 Hex

Basically Overcast and clear weather can be fairly stable conditions and can be expected to remain constant. Many factors in the lower part of the spectrum such as Thick fog/Hvy Snow etc can also stay steady for long periods of time. Anything in the middle are relatively unstable conditions that can change suddenly or gradually over a short amount of time. From what I've seen in my test runs for the mid range that I selected, things are fairly gradual and not overly severe over the long run.


"So to answer Dogovich question if a scn is unhistorical when visibilty changes randomly is YES. Once it changes outside the historical weather reports, it is unhistorical. I do not claim to have read or used weather reports for all my scenarios, but for those with 1 hex visibility it is documented well, exceeding this 1 hex is unhistorical."

"Huib"

In answer to this, once a player starts to move his forces, and fails to use the historic tactics of the day, or alters things to such a degree that the outcome of a battle is changed, then it ceases to be historical and becomes a "what if." Then too, what of the effects of random events? How many ambushes, assaults, etc have been affected by the moon coming out, or the rain ceasing, or any other chance encounter. If we as players are able to the minute to account for weather conditions and when they'll change, we can base whole strategies on them. In tossing in a little variability, I sought to enhance the degree of chance in a fight and maybe present the player with a greater amount of replay in a scenario. Isn't that why a good designer will set percentage chances on when reinforcements arrive or when fixed troops are released?

I was less swayed by arguments about history than I was about scale. Ed is right. Scale does have to be accounted for. Claims of historical accuracy are often subject to a designer's interpretation or else by an absence of facts concerning a battle. But as long as a designer can get the general feel of a battle down, and make it fun to play for both sides, then I have no problem if the facts are fudged a bit, or the situation changes. The best scenarios are those that don't follow the same exact path each time they are played. Otherwise, they tend to get stale and too predictable.

But anyway, for my part, the visual variability that I originally programmed in was overly severe and I had no problem with altering it.

[Huib Versloot]

Wyatt,

I think the consensus among players and designers about what is desirable for future changes is a little bit more important than how YOU think the game should be. I hope we won't have to have these kind of discussions again AFTER a change is programmed but can discuss it beforehand.
That you don't have a problem with 'fudging' facts doesn't mean others also don't.
And a 'good' designer DOESN'T add % chance reinforcements IMO.
In the software business where I work it is not the developer who decides what will be programmed; it's the 'business' that decides. May sound harsh and it's not meant personally, but I (and other designers) know the 'business' better than the programmers. You should know that.

Huib