StellarRat

Late model BBs were the Aegis cruisers of their day. They had 3 - 4x the AA of early war BBs. Very few Japanese planes survived the final approach to American carriers late in the war. In the pictures and movies I've seen the flak is so heavy it actually blackens the sky. My guess is that massed modern missile cruisers probably would take a lot of fighters down in any attack on a well organized fleet.

Because they were so slow they wanted to make sure they could hurt anything that wandered by before it ran off? :-)

WASHINGTON ACTION REPORT SUMMARY OF OUTSTANDING EVENTS AND GENERAL COMMENT On the night of November 14-15 WASHINGTON was flagship of Commander Task Force 64 (ComBatDiv 6). In column, with four destroyers ahead and SOUTH DAKOTA astern, she stood north between Russell and Guadalcanal, then east and southeast, passing north of Savo. Standing west from this point, first radar contact was made at 0001 with enemy ships east of Savo. From 0016 to 0019 fired 42 rounds 16", opening at 18,500 yards, at large cruiser or battleship which it is believed was sunk. From 0016 to 0017 fired 100 rounds 5" at ranges 12 to 13,000 yards at enemy cruiser or large destroyer which was also engaged by SOUTH DAKOTA and was left burning...

No, only wimpy British and German BBs used < 16". The Americans used manly 16" guns after diddling around with those girly-man 14" guns for far too long. The Japanese even had extra manly samurai 18" guns. :-) Remember it's size of your guns that matters not how you use them.

I don't know. I just hope you can specify WP or proximity fuses when available. And maybe your firing pattern.

If BF is going to do something NEW in WW II...I would certainly hope it is the Pacific Front. I want Marines storming the beaches! Plus I think BFs simulation of 16"artillery would be worth the price of the game all on its own.

Brit that is an interesting idea, but since games are so different how are you going to interact with the GUI and the map and unit database? Even the rules for how units move is different from game to game. Seems like a very tall order to me. Each game is likely to have different objectives and strategies. You might find in the end that all you're doing is developing a new programming language. BTW there are computer languages specifically for AI/expert systems and simulation development.

Wow Brit....you're actually going to go through with this! Cool! I have two suggestions. Make sure to write enough docs and/or code comments to make it easy figure out what stuff does. Second, and probably less likely, make the AI script based so someone can change it using coding similar to VB script. Most people have an easier time with that vs. C++.

You really want to get banned don't you?

I would definitely look at the source and see if there are some things I could fix or at least try to make less bad. If it looked like an easy fix I'd fix it. I'd like to try to hide subs from the AI. No guarantees it wouldn't actually make the game worse though.

Actually, even though I have the programming skills to modify the AI code, it would be much better if the AI was a script that anyone could work on with a text editor, but it might be too slow running or too much work to change that now.

Actually a DLL can be written a variety of languages including Visual Basic, C++ and others. It's just a standard library calling format that Windows OS and other OSs I think know how to deal with.

Buy it StellarRat! [stellarRat backs away] Moon: Buy it! StellarRat: No,Moon. Moon: You must buy it! StellarRat: You cannot offer me this game! Moon: I'm giving it to you! StellarRat: Don't... tempt me Moon! I dare not play it. Not even to demo it. Understand, Moon. I would play this game from a desire to have fun... But through me, it would burn hours too great and terrible to imagine.

Didn't you say in an earlier post that it took you FIVE YEARS of script work to get the AI to play really well? Obviously the non-cheating AI was lousy. No developer has five years to get a game out unless it's hobby and not a business. One thing i sort of agree wirh you on, I wish EOS had some type of API then we could continue the AI work.

I was complaining about two small problems that I suggested a very limited fix for. Not an entire revision of the AI to include complete FOW. Nor did I say the game was unplayable or that I was unhappy with my purchase. The sub and artillery thing does bother me, but its not a show stopper. I have no problem with the AI knowing where my other units are really. It's nearly impossible to hide a large military unit completely. Besides games are sold As-Is if you didn't like the AI when you demoed it you shouldn't have bought it.

I think you are totally misinterpreting what Brit meant. He NEVER said that the AI had to be changed to make EOS a good game. It's already a great game. He wanted to change because it would a good improvement; it certainly is not a required part of the game. You all have taken this whole all seeing AI thing to an extreme. Brit was good enough to share some of the innerworking of the AI and you all go off the deep end when it is desgined like MANY game AIs. The only difference is that you just don't about some of those. My suggestion is don't ask or give computer gaming because if you knew all the dirty little secrets you would always be angry.

All this ranting about the AI is pretty amusing. Brit has given far more than the original content and still people say the game is not "finished". That's just crazy talk. How many free patches and added content/functionality did you all get with Oblivion? Civ? I can guarantee you 99% of all games have some cheats for the computer. Programming a true AI is an immense task. Two of us spent one year working about 10 hours a week doing an AI for a game that was far less complex than EOS. We had no terrain to worry and only two simple objectives, destroy all enemies encountered at a certain point in space or avoid destruction. The basic fire control system for direct fire weapons design for AI (no code just calculations and diagrams) alone was someones entire term project in college. We had improve upon that later then add navigation AI, objective AI and a module to decide when and how to employ unguided bombs. Since it was a tactical game we didn't have to worry about building units or supplies. We're not even talking all the other programming GUI, game design, etc... the two guys I worked with on the project were both physics majors and we all had at least 10 years of programming experience. If you want see how good other games AIs are look at the credits for any major game you're going to see very few programmers and tons of artists ... that should give an idea of how the major producers think about good AI. It's easy and quick to write a semi-competent AI if you allow massive cheating so that's what they do. All really care about is flashy graphics and sound.

I understand the problem. The solution is to scrap enough units to get your economy back in balance. You may lose still but at least you can fight. If you're short on food your population will eventually die off until the food issue is fixed. Also some units consume quite a bit of food, you could scrap them. The best way to defend against these problems is to build large reserves of resources early in the game so you have a chance to counter-attack

I'm not sure exactly why you would complain about losing resources and getting stuck, but I can say that I think more food and oil should exist on land vs. sea in general. Managing your economy is a separate topic really.

Actually, I think subs are far too weak in past level 2. They are the deadliest threat to ships in modern era. Even a modern destroyer is outmatched by a modern sub. The only reasonable platforms to combat them are ASW helicopters and ASW planes (Orion or S2). Noteworthy: Modern destroyers, carriers, and Cruisers can launch ASW helicopters. I tried to fix this with my modern naval rules. I need to revise that to use Brit's new rules.

I still think a standalone radar installation would be a nice building to add to the game.

Why did you increase the detection ranges you listed? Just curious.

Modern missiles are highly accurate and used to destroy high value targets in the rear areas of the enemy where nothing else can reach them or the it is too dangerous for air attack. The V2 was really inaccurate and could only be described as a terror weapon similar to the SCUD missile the Iraqs used in the Gulf War. From a strategic perspective V2's should be nearly worthless.

You'll have to make much smaller maps and use way less units. Most of ported games I've seen use much smaller subsets of PC version. The screen and CPU just don't allow the full game to work on the phone. Also most people aren't going to want play a game for hours on their phone. It would need to be small enough to complete in an hour or two. Maybe six different unit types and maps with three or four islands.

I agree. Porting to Android or iPhone would probably sell a lot of copies.