Hasn't Joe been talking about being swarmed with 700-800 heavy bombers almost before he gets anything in the air in one scenario? He hasn't provided screenshots ... yet.

Yes - well, sort of: I think - and believe I stated - that it seemed to be that number of bombers and missiles.

 

As for screenshots, I didn't realize they were required. I mean, I didn't see this situation as a "defect", I just figured (initially) that it was a horrendously lop-sided scenario.

 

But, to clarify a few things about the experience:

 

- This 700-800 situation was an estimate, and tended to be supported by the info that I could gather after the fact. Specifically, there were about three or four red airbases (I don't recall the exact number), and when I looked at the estimated numbers of aircraft on those bases, each one had at least 100 bombers listed on base, with over 200 in some cases... and I believe these numbers did not include the aircraft which had launched the missiles, because I assume those were still airborne at that point. In any case, it indicated that there were at least 400-700 bombers in the game, that were currently landed, and most likely at least 100 more still ariborne - probably a lot more.

 

- This situation occurred the first time I tried to play the scenario. I played it againt right after, and there were considerably fewer bombers involved. I think I counted something in the neighborhood of "only" 250 bombers listed at bases at the outset of that game.

 

- My assumption is that there must have been quite a number of conditionally-included bombers in the scenario, and for some reason, my first game pretty much got maxed out. (I assume someone who has a scenario editor can confirm or refute this assumption).

 

- If this situation can't be explained by the numbers included in the scenario, then perhaps there is some "defect" involved that would explain the hordes of bombers that apparently existed in the first play. (In this case, I'd have to guess it would trace back to some problem with the randomizer that caused huge numbers of a/c to be present).

Joe K, as a general rule I detest screenshots (often people use them as a substitute for real investigative work like providing saves), but these folks are just trying to understand and find a way to communicate with you and move you and understand you.

 

There is no random number of planes added, there is a random chance that a "scenario designer set number of planes" is added. I know in the scenarios that I did for the reworked USNI the difference may well have been in the hundreds of bombers spread across multiple airfields. So as a fictional example KolaA may have a 100% chance of 50 bombers, 50% chance of 50 more, and 25% chance of 25 for meaning anywhere from 50 to 125 bombers at the one base at scenario start.

I can think of more useful things to do with our limited coding/beta testing time.

No quibble here. Yet, since you bring it up, I do rather wonder why you don't have more resources on the job.

 

Let's see...

 

Brad has a full time job and a family.

 

Tony has a full time job, owns and operates a company in his spare time, and is fumbling towards being in a position to have a family.

 

We are the major contributors. Then there are the beta testers like donaldseadog who go above and beyond. Database authors like Enrique and Rene who work their magic day in and day out provide valuable service. Scenario authors are out there too pouring time into their creations, keeping the game alive.

 

 

All of us are volunteers. For none of us is this our job. We spend ~$400 per year to keep this website running (Brad, Fred, and I split the bill). The programming tools run around $750/yr these days. I've averaged about $200/yr in payment for the work, Brad a little less, Fred little at all. Note also that we did not ask for money. While we'd love to be paid a respectable wage for the work that won't happen unless a rich benefactor comes along. This year I'll spend hundreds of additional dollars out of pocket to ship copies of the game around the world to those that have helped the game over the years and have not been rewarded by any person or organization more senior than me.

 

 

So do you still wonder why there aren't more resources who want to be battered in public forums while paying for the honor? Do others really want to finish a patch and not have it distributed by the publisher for over a year, all the while taking flack for not patching the game? Some have tried for a short while and most melt away just as quickly.

I can think of more useful things to do with our limited coding/beta testing time.

No quibble here. Yet, since you bring it up, I do rather wonder why you don't have more resources on the job.

 

Let's see...

 

Brad has a full time job and a family.

 

Tony has a full time job, owns and operates a company in his spare time, and is fumbling towards being in a position to have a family.

 

We are the major contributors. Then there are the beta testers like donaldseadog who go above and beyond. Database authors like Enrique and Rene who work their magic day in and day out provide valuable service. Scenario authors are out there too pouring time into their creations, keeping the game alive.

 

 

All of us are volunteers. For none of us is this our job. We spend ~$400 per year to keep this website running (Brad, Fred, and I split the bill). The programming tools run around $750/yr these days. I've averaged about $200/yr in payment for the work, Brad a little less, Fred little at all. Note also that we did not ask for money. While we'd love to be paid a respectable wage for the work that won't happen unless a rich benefactor comes along. This year I'll spend hundreds of additional dollars out of pocket to ship copies of the game around the world to those that have helped the game over the years and have not been rewarded by any person or organization more senior than me.

 

 

So do you still wonder why there aren't more resources who want to be battered in public forums while paying for the honor? Do others really want to finish a patch and not have it distributed by the publisher for over a year, all the while taking flack for not patching the game? Some have tried for a short while and most melt away just as quickly.

Sorry to strike a nerve there, but I think my question was rather misunderstood. Specifically, considering that people are paying a fair chunk of change for each copy of the game set, it seems like there would be the wherewithal to have some other resources helping out - especially if they are all volunteers as you say. From my perspective, and considering the workload you describe, it's just very puzzling why the resources are so restricted for the project.

Joe K, as a general rule I detest screenshots (often people use them as a substitute for real investigative work like providing saves), but these folks are just trying to understand and find a way to communicate with you and move you and understand you.

 

There is no random number of planes added, there is a random chance that a "scenario designer set number of planes" is added. I know in the scenarios that I did for the reworked USNI the difference may well have been in the hundreds of bombers spread across multiple airfields. So as a fictional example KolaA may have a 100% chance of 50 bombers, 50% chance of 50 more, and 25% chance of 25 for meaning anywhere from 50 to 125 bombers at the one base at scenario start.

First off, I think this is a non-issue - and I'm kind of wondering why so much attention is being paid to it. I think from the start I said that I thought this situation was some sort of anomaly - which I meant in the sense of a highly unusual (but legitimate) event, not in the sense of a "defect". The whole thing just came out an anecdote about a rather memorable -and flustering- experience.

 

There is no random number of planes added... KolaA may have a 100% chance of 50 bombers, 50% chance of 50 more, and 25% chance of 25 for meaning anywhere from 50 to 125 bombers at the one base at scenario start.

I'm confused by this apparently contradictory set of statements, but I think you are simply reiterating what I tried to convey regarding the ability for the scenario to be set up such that various quantities of aircraft may or may not appear in any given run of the scenario, based on assigned probabilities. I have to believe that in the first run that I described, the quantities were pretty much all maxed out, for whatever reason - most likely all (or the vast majority of) the probabilities just happened to be fulfilled in that case. However, if the numbers that I saw exceed the total possible numbers, then I suppose something must be wrong. But, if you meant something else by this, then I've missed the point.

I'm confused by this apparently contradictory set of statements, but I think you are simply reiterating what I tried to convey regarding the ability for the scenario to be set up such that various quantities of aircraft may or may not appear in any given run of the scenario, based on assigned probabilities. I have to believe that in the first run that I described, the quantities were pretty much all maxed out, for whatever reason - most likely all (or the vast majority of) the probabilities just happened to be fulfilled in that case. However, if the numbers that I saw exceed the total possible numbers, then I suppose something must be wrong. But, if you meant something else by this, then I've missed the point.

 

The number of bombers appearing is not purely random or subject to the whims of the computer.

 

Their chance of appearing in predetermined numbers were well defined and input by the scenario author.

 

Nothing contradictory in there at all.

Their chance of appearing in predetermined numbers were well defined and input by the scenario author.

Except that it is random as far as which probabilities get satisfied (i.e. - which groups of aircraft get included) in any given play of the scenario... which is what I was saying all along, so I don't get where all that other stuff came from.

Except that it is random as far as which probabilities get satisfied (i.e. - which groups of aircraft get included) in any given play of the scenario... which is what I was saying all along, so I don't get where all that other stuff came from.

 

We must have a very different definition of randomness, as I see the earlier offered example as being very well defined.

 

Example:

Kola may have a 100% chance of 50 bombers; and

50% chance of 50 more; and

25% chance of 25 more.

 

So we know Kola is getting at least 50 bombers.

There is a 1 in 2 chance of getting another 50, for a possible total of 100.

There is also a 1 in 4 chance of getting another 25, for a possible total of 125.

 

I don't see any of these three different possibilities as being random, or having no pattern or purpose.

Specifically, considering that people are paying a fair chunk of change for each copy of the game set, it seems like there would be the wherewithal to have some other resources helping out - especially if they are all volunteers as you say. From my perspective, and considering the workload you describe, it's just very puzzling why the resources are so restricted for the project.

 

Not meaning to step on anyone's toes here, and I hope I don't get it wrong, and anyway Tony has already answered this, but the point is that any money that comes in from game sales goes to the company that owns the game, and it's not going to the folks who are posting here. The hardcore posters are the ones who are actually developing this version of the game (for free).

 

ANW is a different version of Harpoon.

Specifically, considering that people are paying a fair chunk of change for each copy of the game set, it seems like there would be the wherewithal to have some other resources helping out - especially if they are all volunteers as you say. From my perspective, and considering the workload you describe, it's just very puzzling why the resources are so restricted for the project.

 

Not meaning to step on anyone's toes here, and I hope I don't get it wrong, and anyway Tony has already answered this, but the point is that any money that comes in from game sales goes to the company that owns the game, and it's not going to the folks who are posting here. The hardcore posters are the ones who are actually developing this version of the game (for free).

That's what I was attempting to speak to... to be explicit, I have to wonder why the company that makes the money from this is not poviding more resources to help with its development/maintenance. (I'm not seeking infomation about the actual relationships and financial agreements that may or may not exist; instead I'm simply stating that it is a puzzling situation).

 

Beyond that, though, given the situation is as it is (that is, development by volunteer efforts), then considering there is more work than volunteers to do it, then the obvious question comes to mind of why are more volunteers not accepted into the project?

That's what I was attempting to speak to... to be explicit, I have to wonder why the company that makes the money from this is not poviding more resources to help with its development/maintenance. (I'm not seeking infomation about the actual relationships and financial agreements that may or may not exist; instead I'm simply stating that it is a puzzling situation).

 

Not to put too fine of a point on it, but the flagship product for AGSI is H3:ANW, not HCE. That's a company decision, and let's leave it there.

 

Beyond that, though, given the situation is as it is (that is, development by volunteer efforts), then considering there is more work than volunteers to do it, then the obvious question comes to mind of why are more volunteers not accepted into the project?

 

Volunteer help with ongoing beta work is open and welcomed. You're already aware of where the beta forum is, and in many respects, it happens right here in this thread and others like it at HG. Wherever something useful can be fleshed out to help the overall progress of the project.

 

Over and above that level of commitment, do you any know any competent, capable people who are willing to put an inordinate (probably a better word would be insane) amount of time and effort into this kind of a volunteer effort purely for the love of the game? If so, go ahead and point em in AGSI's direction.

Except that it is random as far as which probabilities get satisfied (i.e. - which groups of aircraft get included) in any given play of the scenario... which is what I was saying all along, so I don't get where all that other stuff came from.

 

We must have a very different definition of randomness, as I see the earlier offered example as being very well defined.

Apparently...

 

Example:

Kola may have a 100% chance of 50 bombers; and

50% chance of 50 more; and

25% chance of 25 more.

 

So we know Kola is getting at least 50 bombers.

There is a 1 in 2 chance of getting another 50, for a possible total of 100.

There is also a 1 in 4 chance of getting another 25, for a possible total of 125.

 

I don't see any of these three different possibilities as being random, or having no pattern or purpose.

What I seem unable to convey is that there is a finite total number of units that could show up in any given run of the scenario, BUT for each particular run, the actual number available may differ, at random, based on which set of probabilities happen to be met in that instance.

 

Depending on how the probabilities are calculated (that is, either one random percentage number tested against each of the probabilities, or a new random pecentage number tested for each individual probability), there may be different sets of possible overall outcomes, but the point is, in the example here, any particular run would always have at least 50 units and no more than 125, and the actual number would be determined by somehow applying a random value to the probability calculations in each run. Conversely, if there was indeed no random factor in the calculations, then all runs of the scenario would always have the same number of units included.

 

But, then, perhaps my statistics are as corroded as my algebra...

I'm done discussing the SE and the chance of platforms appearing. My hair hurts.

Over and above that level of commitment, do you any know any competent, capable people who are willing to put an inordinate (probably a better word would be insane) amount of time and effort into this kind of a volunteer effort purely for the love of the game? If so, go ahead and point em in AGSI's direction.

 

Perhaps the question here then becomes, what constitutes "competent" and "capable"... as well as what amount of time and effort would actually be demanded of such a "volunteer"?

 

I mean, I am a volunteer firefighter, and it's getting to the point that government regulations and community demands for "completely professional capabilities" would almost literally consume all non-working, non-sleeping hours in the day, leaving no time at all for "discretionary" activities - you know, things like eating, commuting, taking care of family finances, interacting with the personal family, household chores, yada, yada, yada... In other words, pretty much like the way you guys describe the HCE efforts... In any case, that might be a bit much to expect... but the whole idea of having more hands is to lighten the workload, so if it really would involve (somewhat) less time commitment, then maybe some people will turn up.

I'm done discussing the SE and the chance of platforms appearing. My hair hurts.

Hey... at least you have hair to hurt!