The DW Mod Scene - Ok, WTF?

Originally Posted by To be

The response to particular events might be great - but all I can say is that in my experience the overall employment of tactics by the AI (especially from surface vessels) in RA is significantly less challenging to defeat than the LWAMI behavior. One particular way to see this is to set up a surface fleet of (AI) warships (say, a carrier group), and place a few (AI) subs ahead of the group on barrier patrol. The ships, in my experience, do a vastly better job fighting back in LWAMI than in RA. I use both mods of course, both have their strengths. I'd be happy to send you an example replay file of the kind of test I was talking about if you'd like to see them.

You are mistaken.

The ships at all work in LWAMI not better.

The doctrines for the ships - in any way do not process their tactics.
The doctrines only operate the weapon - and that only partially.

You can in general remove the doctrine CIWS.txt and CIWSAttack.txt.
Despite of it - the ship will have the same behaviour and also will launch the weapon despite lacking the doctrines.

One word - it is manages from NavalSimEngine - but not from the doctrine completely.

There is one known tactics - shoot one missile against the surface ship.
After that - the ship will be sped up up to speed washout of the sensor controls.
And after that you shoot a passive torpedo. The ship will be 100 % killed.

With RA - such will not allow.

You can put the test mission on a forum RedRodgers as attachment archive.

[To be]

Originally Posted by -GrayOwl-

You are mistaken.

The ships at all work in LWAMI not better.

The doctrines for the ships - in any way do not process their tactics.
The doctrines only operate the weapon - and that only partially.

You can in general remove the doctrine CIWS.txt and CIWSAttack.txt.
Despite of it - the ship will have the same behaviour and also will launch the weapon despite lacking the doctrines.

One word - it is manages from NavalSimEngine - but not from the doctrine completely.

There is one known tactics - shoot one missile against the surface ship.
After that - the ship will be sped up up to speed washout of the sensor controls.
And after that you shoot a passive torpedo. The ship will be 100 % killed.

With RA - such will not allow.

You can put the test mission on a forum RedRodgers as attachment archive.

I am not mistaken about my own experiences, and I encourage you to try setting up a mission of the type I described to see for yourself the behavior I described. Any improvement to both, or either, mod would be very welcome to me. However, you appear to be more interested in ignoring any criticism blindly, rather than taking it constructively. No mod will ever be perfect, so outright rejecting any comments about ways it could be improved isn't very productive. Additionally your comments about LWAMI being "absolutely wrong" are not very respectful to the developers of LWAMI - whereas they have shown nothing but respect for the work of the RA team. I doubt that you would appreciate the same sort of 'feedback' given to your own work.

[goldorak]

Originally Posted by To be

No mod will ever be perfect, so outright rejecting any comments about ways it could be improved isn't very productive. Additionally your comments about LWAMI being "absolutely wrong" are not very respectful to the developers of LWAMI - whereas they have shown nothing but respect for the work of the RA team. I doubt that you would appreciate the same sort of 'feedback' given to your own work.

You are right, no mod will be the perfect mod. This doesn't mean that all mods are created equal. As incredibile as the work on Lwami is and has been over the past several years, there is a point beyond which they simply cannot/willnot enhance the game. Lwami still carries a lot of bugs that are hardcoded in the game engine. They were present in DW 1.0 and are still present in DW 1.04 + lwami 3.10. No amount of modding the database and doctrines will fix these bugs. If people accept this situation then all is good.
But we now have a mod that tries to fix those hardcoded bugs. And this is a good thing too. From this point of view Lwami is "wrong" is the sense that it still relies on buggy behaviour from the navalsimengine.
The problem wouldn't exist in the first place if SCS had done their job and released a functionning navalsimengine. That unfortunately was not the case.

[To be]

Originally Posted by goldorak

You are right, no mod will be the perfect mod. This doesn't mean that all mods are created equal. As incredibile as the work on Lwami is and has been over the past several years, there is a point beyond which they simply cannot/willnot enhance the game. Lwami still carries a lot of bugs that are hardcoded in the game engine. They were present in DW 1.0 and are still present in DW 1.04 + lwami 3.10. No amount of modding the database and doctrines will fix these bugs. If people accept this situation then all is good.
But we now have a mod that tries to fix those hardcoded bugs. And this is a good thing too. From this point of view Lwami is "wrong" is the sense that it still relies on buggy behaviour from the navalsimengine.
The problem wouldn't exist in the first place if SCS had done their job and released a functionning navalsimengine. That unfortunately was not the case.

I very much agree. RA has taken DW mods to a whole new level, and I enjoy it very much. (Except I'm not going to blame SCS - they created a game where there is little market and even less hope of a profit. I'm thankful DW exists - just as no mod is perfect no game is perfect, I'm happy to have what we have.)

Originally Posted by To be

I am not mistaken about my own experiences, and I encourage you to try setting up a mission of the type I described to see for yourself the behavior I described. Any improvement to both, or either, mod would be very welcome to me. However, you appear to be more interested in ignoring any criticism blindly, rather than taking it constructively. No mod will ever be perfect, so outright rejecting any comments about ways it could be improved isn't very productive. Additionally your comments about LWAMI being "absolutely wrong" are not very respectful to the developers of LWAMI - whereas they have shown nothing but respect for the work of the RA team. I doubt that you would appreciate the same sort of 'feedback' given to your own work.

Here asked - what distinctions between these mods.

Partially I have answered.

If I shall begin list other distinctions (I can direct to name them bugs, default comes from SCS game version) - then you again will say that I intentionally " lower downwards " LWAMI.

[dd149]

GrayOwl, I think that is the US it could be a legal concern to openly modify dlll/exe, so please understand Molon Labe and others. They are in no way responsible for the shortcomings of SCS, but have tried to improve DW while avoiding legal trouble, which can really problem in the US.
On the other hand I believe that everybody likes what you are doing in the RA team, as many of original bugs are now corrected by your hard work, with others still being under work.
May I suggest that we could all join forces in developing the next stage. You and RA are certainly the one for the hardcoding, but why not making use of modding by others too? We know that it is not easy and would involve some communication/documentation issues but it would be worth trying.

[Pillar]

Well, does anyone feel enlightened?

I don't really.

Anyways, GreyOwl I had a look with DWEdit and noticed in RA you have passive sonars giving range, course and speed data (like Radar might.) Why is this?

Originally Posted by Pillar

Well, does anyone feel enlightened?

I don't really.

Anyways, GreyOwl I had a look with DWEdit and noticed in RA you have passive sonars giving range, course and speed data (like Radar might.) Why is this?

Because you - having passive contact can calculate his course data using TMA (Shot Solution).

Why AI then can not it do?

However - we make a delay in the doctrine for a shot.

Besides - the parameters on the decision, depend also on other factors - as will shoot on you quickly and exactly AI.


And besides - not all data can be received in the doctrine from sensors.

Certainly - I could leave all as in an original database (that you were quiet), but to calculate correct distance in the doctrine - as I know algorithm (formula) as sonalysts enters an error for to deform true value of range.

But we have made more simply.

[Pillar]

I understand

Is the delay built into the doctrine variable or fixed? In other words: will the time from the moment the AI makes the passive contact to the time the contact is pegged on course and speed always be the same length?

I notice some platforms (surface platforms even) have this "make simple solution" but not others. Why do some platforms use this technique? What is the reason you pick them?

Also what does the AI get from the "Altitude" report from the sensor and how would they use that data?

THANK YOU this is most interesting!