Jump to content

A Canadian Cat - was IanL

Members
  • Posts

    16,452
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    55

Posts posted by A Canadian Cat - was IanL

  1. On 3/21/2024 at 10:30 PM, Artkin said:

    Dude you think this is my first game? The ground conditions are set to very dry. 

    Dude you think missing super important information means I can read your mind 🙂

    Ah I see your fuller explanation. So delete this:

    I still don't see the kinds of issues you are experiencing. So my mind reading is stumped 😉

  2. 1 hour ago, Anthony P. said:

    That... doesn't make much sense. Or rather, it's quite skewed statistics.

    Optics and different kinds of sensors are modelled. A T-64 definitely has better optics than a Tiger 1, so it's not as though they're competing on an equal footing.

    Even with enhanced optics and IR and and and.. there is still a chance things will not be spotted. It's just human nature to miss stuff or pay attention to one thing and miss something else. More importantly that is modeled in the game. So, I agree there is more testing that needs to happen for sure. Just starting with a statistically significant set of runs. That would be a starting point though. All the other factors would then need to be considered. First one I can think of is what happens if the T64 is on a slightly higher elevation does that change things - especially for the guy in the grass.

    Feel free to conduct the tests. I would, personally, not even weigh in until that part gets done. If you try to chase every anecdote down you will get tired of running pretty quick. Having said that we should all pursue the issues we think look interesting / problematic.

  3. The main problem with road travel is; there are no roads as we experience them in the game. What there are. in the game. are a series of tiles that look like a small patch of road and can be assembled in to a series that looks just like a road. So, there isn't anything for the computer to travel along that is contiguous and identifiable. That means creating code that allows units to travel along a road is a lot harder and more prone to issues. Solutions that worked around that didn't really create the ability to travel along a road. They did other things that may or may not have been useful or matched the expectations of the name. 

  4. 46 minutes ago, Monty's Mighty Moustache said:

    1) ... not really necessary to hide especially as tanks don't spot that well.

    Don't hide your team when you want them to act. Hiding greatly reduces the team's spotting ability.

    46 minutes ago, Monty's Mighty Moustache said:

    2) Yes a panzerfaust team with a Target Armour Arc will only shoot the rocket at armour.

    Unless the armour is unbuttoned. Then they team members will fire small arms at the TC 

    46 minutes ago, Monty's Mighty Moustache said:

    I can't remember exactly but I think armoured cars and such don't count as armour but half-tracks and tanks do.

    I am fairly sure that armoured cars count in the armour arc.

    46 minutes ago, Monty's Mighty Moustache said:

    3) Yes if the team is hiding and a target comes into the arc and they have a good shot they will unhide and attack.

    Maybe. The risk is they will fail to spot the tank. 

    46 minutes ago, Monty's Mighty Moustache said:

    Target arcs are a good way to make sure supporting assets such as HMGs or rifle squads don't open fire and give away the positions either, just set a small target arc of a few metres and they will not fire at anything outside the arc.

    Target arcs are meant to prevent your men from firing. So, use them carefully and sparing.

  5. Brad is that you?

    Funny story, in a team I was on we changed our source control rules and made it mandatory to enter a description when checking code into the source control repository. We did this because some people were checking in code without any mention of why.

    Our troublesome team mate just entered '.' as his description.

    Sigh

  6. 7 hours ago, The_Capt said:

    I am honestly amazed that anything I write causes anyone to think about anything “all day”, but that must be the pressure of Canadian culture.

    Yeah, it must be because that post is going to have me thinking all day too.

    Dude you have to write a book at some point.

  7. 20 hours ago, Artkin said:

    The only problem people have is a lack of communication. That's it.

    I just don't by that. 

    20 hours ago, Artkin said:

    Other developers share their progress

    Like what? Weekly statements "we have 8 scenarios started for the new module and 5 new models" and later "we still have 8 scenarios started and no no models". Or monthly the same. And again and again. I think it would start a whole new area of complaint "why aren't they working on <insert favourite project> nothing is changing what are they doing. They are just wasting time. 

    LOL

    19 hours ago, JM Stuff said:

    I dare to hope that you yourself will one day be in this undecided situation and that you will ask yourself what stage a project is at, just to inform yourself, just to know and perhaps have the information you are looking for, like everyone does.

    LOL every damn day man. I have several photo and video editing tools I use and have zero visibility into what they are actually working on until they release something new. I hit the odd bug. Some are annoying some bloody inconvenient. I never have any clue if or when they are going to be fixed. Hell only some of the time can I tell they have been confirmed.

    I follow this advice - sound familiar?

    21 hours ago, A Canadian Cat - was IanL said:

    buy the products that are available that fits your needs. If non are available you have to wait.

    Exactly and I do and I use them to edit my photos and videos and get work done as best I can.

     

    21 hours ago, A Canadian Cat - was IanL said:

    Wouldn't you rather have a working product in some future time than crap now?

    Hell yes I would rather have working product when it's ready.

  8. As a Canadian I would vote Canadian.

     

    On 3/2/2024 at 11:05 AM, MOS:96B2P said:

    opening scenario be a "choice" scenario where the player chooses if he wants to use Canadian forces or the US 82ND Airborne.

    Wow that would be cool though. It's a lot of work. I suppose you can cut that work down by setting up the forces for one formation and play testing and tweaking. Then creating a roughly equivalent force from the other formation. That would at least cut down the play testing required to less than double.

     

    On 3/2/2024 at 3:34 PM, dragonwynn said:

    the map size is large I may cut it down for each scenario

    A very good idea. Plus map damage does not get preserved between fights so fighting on different parts of the map helps any continuity issues that can create.

  9. 4 minutes ago, Butschi said:

    Also, while we all want to know how long we have to wait, I'll take "when it's done" over a fixed release date at which the product has to ship at all costs every time if it ensures the product is properly finalized.

    100% or the endless bitch session that would result here if the decision was made to delay and issue a new date was made. 

    There are really only three choices with regard to this: 

    1. Pick a date and ship whatever you've got - obvious downside is bugs and issues with content
    2. Pick a date and delay to a new date if things are not as you want them - obvious downside here is complaints and erosion of "trust"
    3. Don't pick a date (or I should say don't say one publicly because all projects have dates) and just repeat the mantra "it will be done when it is ready" - is there a downside here - I don't know one. Marketing people will say they cannot build the sales collateral - BS just have it ready and book the interviews and reviews in the final weeks or after release but what do I know? I only have 30 years of software development experience and no marketing experience - other than watching them do it and not make sweet **** all of a difference if the campaign starts before release or after. Customers say they cannot plan or rely on you - BS: buy the products that are available that fits your needs. If non are available you have to wait. Wouldn't you rather have a working product in some future time than crap now? If you say you want working product now that's just stupid because that doesn't exist does it? Hence this question.

    You can end up in a combo of 1 and 2 that either turns into a death spiral: the product is not ready so we will delay it but that means you need to add feature X because the competition has changed which leads to more delays and feature Y needs to be added etc.; or you delay one or two times but piss off everyone and eventually you are forced to end up releasing early even though you tired to do the right thing and fix your problems.

    I have worked in through all of these scenarios. The choices that BFC make are absolutely the best framework for managing projects I have lived with. I have worked for other places that get it right too BFC are not unique but doing this right is not the norm - sadly.

  10. I would really like it too. We seem so close with Fortress Italy. Would require the time pushed back a little more and some new equipment I suppose but not a lot. There would be some buildings that would need to be changed / added plus all the usual TO&E work plus some scenarios. I would love to have such a game. In CM1 AK was my favourite.

  11. 37 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

    having Mitch McConnell waive the white flag and surrender to Trumppublicans is not good for anybody,

    To be fair he's not in the best of health. It may not be as much a surrender and he just cannot do the job any more - or can see that day coming rapidly. He certainly has given enough service to get a break.

  12. 18 hours ago, Fernando said:

    Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

    I do love that saying - it is always a good avenue of thought when trying to figure out if some conspiracy theory is true or not. 🙂

    I fear in this case there is some malice too - those agents are likely fully aware of the **** they are sending people too.

  13. 18 hours ago, Butschi said:

    a) the supposed Russian estimate of 2 days for the initial invasion (not CIA)

    No one took a shot at this. I don't have a source that proves it but I think you can look at the attack actions and infer the plan was to take out the head and end the whole thing in a few days:

    • Columns of mech streaming in from the north and just trying to drive on the roads to Kyiv
    • Air mobile landings at air ports around major cities especially Kyiv
    • Saboteurs activated in the capital as the attack got started.

    You don't drop air mobile guys that far behind enemy lines with a plan that says it will take three weeks to get to where you dropped them off.

    You don't just start driving on the highway if you expected significant resistance.

    The combination of these actions points, in my opinion, strongly towards a 2 day plan. Or at least a quick win plan. To me it looked like a plan to attack on a broad front in the east and south but the victory path was to take over the capital. Decapitate the current regime and insert a favorable one that would then take over the army and have it stand down. With that new government in place your forces in all parts of the country can then concentrate on mopping up those that choose not the listen to the new leadership. Maybe not a 2 day plan but 2 days to be a unstoppable several week process.

×
×
  • Create New...