Why will Command triumph

[Miguel Ramirez]

Just saw this video on their forums:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_lcO0EZZGw

The only I can say is "Awesome".

Cheers,

Miquel.

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On Jan 18, 6:13 pm, Miguel Ramirez <miquel.rami...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Just saw this video on their forums:

Here's 1 reason why it will fail :

This guy thinks it's a good idea to post a grainy video of him doing
<something> in an application that has more menu-items than M$ Office,
with no voice-over telling us what exactly he's doing.

They have names for people like that - none of them are nice.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Bostonmyk]

On Jan 18, 3:27 pm, "eddyster...@hotmail.com"

Thanks for the input Eddy.

When and if we do an open beta can you take a look and give some input
on our interface? We really want to do a good job.

MM

[Bostonmyk]

Thanks Miquel,

Please let us know if there is anything you'd to see in the game.

MM

[Bostonmyk]

On Jan 18, 12:13 pm, Miguel Ramirez <miquel.rami...@gmail.com> wrote:

If you're interested we're maintaining a build roll string to give
people an idea of where we are with things.

http://www.warfaresims.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=9008

Thanks!

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 18 jan, 23:45, Bostonmyk <boston...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> When and if we do an open beta can you take a look and give some input
> on our interface? We really want to do a good job.

Too late. I already read enough about it to know that this is not
going to be a game for me. Too detailed and not enough abstraction. I
realize that those details are the heart of the game and in there by
design and more power to you if you like that.

Nevertheless, purely out of curiosity I sure would have appreciated a
video that was a) clear and b) had some audio which explained what was
going on. But a 13 minute grainy image video of a guy clicking left
and right on unreadable menu-options ? What idiot thought that was a
good idea to promote the game ?

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Miguel Ramirez]

>> When and if we do an open beta can you take a look and give some input
>> on our interface? We really want to do a good job.
>
> Too late. I already read enough about it to know that this is not going
> to be a game for me. Too detailed and not enough abstraction. I realize
> that those details are the heart of the game and in there by design and
> more power to you if you like that.
>
> Nevertheless, purely out of curiosity I sure would have appreciated a
> video that was a) clear and b) had some audio which explained what was
> going on. But a 13 minute grainy image video of a guy clicking left and
> right on unreadable menu-options ? What idiot thought that was a good
> idea to promote the game ?
>

I watched on HD and I had no problem reading the options. Regarding the
clarity of the interface, it isn't that different from working with
Command Ops Scen Maker. Actually, they're following the conventions used
in Harpoon (which is bad, because those weren't the best metaphors and
good, because those metaphors, no matter how poor it's what people is
used to). I had no trouble "decyphering" this, because of my acquaintance
with the former.

The video was made by one guy beta-testing, and posted on the forums on
request by the regulars there. Not on the main page, or some videogame
outlet. So your comment regarding production values - more so when this
is an effort from former players/consumers who are following that line of
"putting their asses on the firing line - is a bit off, Eddy.

Cheers,

Miquel.

[Miguel Ramirez]

>
> If you're interested we're maintaining a build roll string to give
> people an idea of where we are with things.
>
> http://www.warfaresims.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=9008
>
> Thanks!

I'm subscribed to that thread, Boston :-)

Cheers,

Miquel.

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 19 jan, 11:46, Miguel Ramirez <miquel.rami...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> The video was made by one guy beta-testing, and posted on the forums on
> request by the regulars there. Not on the main page, or some videogame
> outlet. So your comment regarding production values - more so when this
> is an effort from former players/consumers who are following that line of
> "putting their asses on the firing line - is a bit off, Eddy.

If production values suck, they suck irrespective of who made it - I
don't know where you get the HD version of this, but the link you
provided is grainy as hell and the menu-items are definitely not
readable, which wouldn't be such a problem if there was some audio to
go with it.

It's not rocket science to get acceptable quality, even if you're just
a beta bunny - been there, done that

http://cota.matrixgames.com/downloads/cota%20-%205%20minute%20guide%20v2.0.zip

Feel free to comment on it

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Vincenzo Beretta]

> Too late. I already read enough about it to know that this is
> not going to be a game for me.

Pity, you could have checked if the final game has some of those amazing
"The scenario plays by itself and ends up the same way no matter what the
player does", the developers are famous for.

I and Herman even made a video with one of these scenarios played two times,
side by side. On one side the player the actually tries to win it, on the
other side the scenario is let running by itself. The end result, no matter
what, is the same. It is quite funny to watch, with ships exploding with no
reason at all and stuff :o)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwuPiDNMPE4

For those still incredulous, the developers even actively defended this "we
sell it as a wargame scenario but it actually is an interactive video"
choice...

http://www.warfaresims.com/?p=962

...It doesn't matter how any videogame writer worth his salt will tell you
how breaking the rules and remove control from the player *in those parts of
the game where he is supposed to be in control* (as opposed to narrative
cutscenes) is both cheating and bad writing. Yup: even in the games "quoted"
as examples.

[Which, BTW, makes even more worrying their announcement that in Command
"scenario files will be encrypted"
(http://www.warfaresims.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=10706#p45620). Be
ready for your USS Carl Vinson to eXplode out of the blue, just in case...]

[Miguel Ramirez]

>
> It's not rocket science to get acceptable quality, even if you're just a
> beta bunny - been there, done that
>
> http://cota.matrixgames.com/downloads/cota%20-%205%20minute%20guide%
20v2.0.zip
>
> Feel free to comment on it
>

Eddy, you're missing my point, and I sincerely don't understand your
attitude. I don't see how you can compare something posted on a forum out
of a whim on request by people interested in the game with a carefully
crafted - how many hours went into that? - video which is meant to
provide documentation to play a game.

The intention behind the act is very different in the two cases. And
given the intention of the Command video, I can well forgive grainy
videos (just check the resolution settings video on youtube) made with
what looks like a cheap FRAPS clone (hence the low framerate).

Cheers,

Miquel.

[Miguel Ramirez]

> Pity, you could have checked if the final game has some of those amazing
> "The scenario plays by itself and ends up the same way no matter what
> the player does", the developers are famous for.
>
> I and Herman even made a video with one of these scenarios played two
> times, side by side. On one side the player the actually tries to win
> it, on the other side the scenario is let running by itself. The end
> result, no matter what, is the same. It is quite funny to watch, with
> ships exploding with no reason at all and stuff :o)
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwuPiDNMPE4
>
> For those still incredulous, the developers even actively defended this
> "we sell it as a wargame scenario but it actually is an interactive
> video" choice...
>
> http://www.warfaresims.com/?p=962
>
> ...It doesn't matter how any videogame writer worth his salt will tell
> you how breaking the rules and remove control from the player *in those
> parts of the game where he is supposed to be in control* (as opposed to
> narrative cutscenes) is both cheating and bad writing. Yup: even in the
> games "quoted" as examples.
>

I see. So you are basically saying that, for instance, Lucasfilm - where
this kind of deus ex machina was a usual plot device in their games -
were "crap"?

The argument should be - in my opinion - more like "Please, specify in
your notes that this scenario includes a deus ex machina that preordains
its result".

Actually, their explanation and comparison seemed to me to be on-topic an
right. It would have been nice to put it explicitly on the scenario
designer's notes. I haven't ever played that scenario because I didn't
find it interesting, which is something different than thinking that "the
guy who designed that is crap". Let's not forget that an scenario
designer can do whatever he pleases. He's not signed any contract with
anybody guaranteeing *counterfactuals*.

That these are possible usually make for interesting games, of course.
But I can understand that an scenario like that - think of Kobayashi Maru
- can be interesting, educational or even enjoyable.

If you didn't like that, the thing a person with some minimum common
sense and good faith would do would have been to, say, write an e-mail
politely requesting the deus ex-machina to be removed. Or, very much like
James Kirk, you can edit it out yourself, sending the version of the
scenario to the original author, explaining - politely and in an amiable
tone - the reasons that lead you to do so.

However, I don't see this *reasonable* things even been considered. Since
I think you're a quite intelligent and bright individual, this all smacks
of personal enmity due to certain episode we have already discussed on
this newsgroup, and has been debated on the Internets for years and years.

> [Which, BTW, makes even more worrying their announcement that in Command
> "scenario files will be encrypted"
> (http://www.warfaresims.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=10706#p45620). Be
> ready for your USS Carl Vinson to eXplode out of the blue, just in
> case...]

Looking at this other post after considering the feedback given by other
people, I don't think it's all said and done

http://www.warfaresims.com/forum/viewtopic.php?
f=50&t=10706&sid=6496745c4c46cf77cf9c4258702a65ac&start=20#p45904

and scenario-specific database overrides sound fine to me (and to others
who expressed his opinion already on this newsgroup).

To be honest, this thread is pure FUD. The sad thing is that it is old -
or rather, ancient - FUD. Good luck with that.

Paraphrasing Shaggy: "Common seeeeeeeeeense, where art ya?" :-)

Cheers,

Miquel.

[Miguel Ramirez]

I mean, I don't understand your attitude as in "you look to me you're
going ballistic on me".

Cheers,

Miquel.

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 19 jan, 12:31, Miguel Ramirez <miquel.rami...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Eddy, you're missing my point, and I sincerely don't understand your
> attitude. I don't see how you can compare something posted on a forum out
> of a whim on request by people interested in the game

I'm not telling those Command guys how to run their game development
process, but in the projects I've been involved with *nothing* gets
put on a public forum without getting vetted by the dev team.

Ergo, if something appears on a public forum this means that they've
signed off on it, and that includes agreeing with the quality, or the
lack thereof, of it.

> with a carefully
> crafted - how many hours went into that? - video which is meant to
> provide documentation to play a game.

First impressions count. That's why serious developers hate to post
screenshots of placeholder graphics ... or post crappy video.

> The intention behind the act is very different in the two cases.

Sure, but all I did was click on a link and then after 10 seconds
check if I hadn't accidentally muted my speakers, then stared
incredulous for a minute at it, then realized there's 12 minutes more
of that and then making up my mind as to what "quality control" means
for those devs.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Vincenzo Beretta]

> I see. So you are basically saying that, for instance, Lucasfilm
> - where this kind of deus ex machina was a usual plot device
> in their games - were "crap"?

Specific example, please? Because if it is done in a cutscene then it is
fair; but if you are supposed to protect a cargo with your X-Wing, you
manage to do it with sweat and blood, and at the end the cargo explodes for
no reason at all and you get the message "You failed", then, yes, it is
crap.

Another good example are games with linked campaigns, like "Sturmovik". At
the end the Germans will lose the war, because you cannot change the overall
course, but you still fly missions tied to a specific moment of the war with
a fair chance to complete them.

> The argument should be - in my opinion - more like "Please,
> specify in your notes that this scenario includes a deus ex
> machina that preordains its result".

That would be fair, but by putting such a sticker you would run the risk
that the gamer buys/plays a wargame where he actually has a say about what
happens on the battlefield, wouldn't you? ^^

(Or, if he is in for a "preordained re-enactment, just watch the excellent
"Santa Cruz" video on Youtube - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QvNQS7HLYE)

> Actually, their explanation and comparison seemed to me to be
> on-topic an right.

No, it isn't, because...

> It would have been nice to put it explicitly on the scenario
> designer's notes.

...It would have been MANDATORY, so that the player could decide if he liked
the idea or not *before* wasting one hour of his life. No amount of
explaining your reasons from a podium with a megaphone will change this,
believe me.

> I haven't ever played that scenario because I didn't
> find it interesting, which is something different than thinking
> that "the guy who designed that is crap".

I agree: by not playing it you can't evaluate it, so it is different.
Someone who played it - with the results we saw - is instead perfectly
entitled to think about "the guy who designed that crap".

> Let's not forget that an scenario designer can do whatever
> he pleases.

Very true. And people who play the scenario can judge both it and the kind
of craft shown by his author the way they want. This is true for comic
books, movies, restaurants and even building bridges, too. If the product is
a commercial one this becomes known as "voting with one own vallet".

> That these are possible usually make for interesting games, of
> course. But I can understand that an scenario like that - think
> of Kobayashi Maru - can be interesting, educational or even
> enjoyable.

The Kobayashi Maru scenario didn't cheat and didn't break the rules at all.
Watch the movie again.

> If you didn't like that, the thing a person with some minimum
> common sense and good faith would do would have been to,
> say, write an e-mail politely requesting the deus ex-machina
> to be removed.

Some players did exactly that. The result was the aforementioned "megaphone
and podium rant" that I linked. Maybe you should read it. They were even
called "stupid" at the end (the Schiller's quote is wrong BTW, but
whatever).

> Or, very much like James Kirk, you can edit it out yourself

Let's even put aside that "fixing the game for yourself Total War-like" is
quite frowned upon by people who just buy the game and expect for it to work
and be enjoyable. Can you explain how I will be able to edit these kind of
stunts out of "Command" scenarios IF THE FUCKING SCENARIO FILES ARE
ENCRYPTED?

> However, I don't see this *reasonable* things even been considered.
> Since I think you're a quite intelligent and bright individual, this all
> smacks of personal enmity due to certain episode we have already
> discussed on this newsgroup

If you mean the tampering of their own database for Harpoon 3 so that
scenarios for some reason "unapproved" by them crashed, this is a whole
different matter, and, if anything, even more reason for concern about
"Command".

Anyway, to be clear, I have no "enmity" towards whatsoever: I don't like to
see lies spreaded about me, true. But I usually limit myself to pointing out
facts, and to try to separate opinion from fact. *This* sometimes causes
enmity towards me, but this is their problem :o)

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 19 jan, 13:28, "Vincenzo Beretta" <vincenzo.bere...@fastwebnet.it>
wrote:

> But I usually limit myself to pointing out
> facts, and to try to separate opinion from fact. *This* sometimes causes
> enmity towards me, but this is their problem :o)

Some people can't handle the truth ... and most of them are involved
in naval wargame development :)

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 19 jan, 12:58, Miguel Ramirez <miquel.rami...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I mean, I don't understand your attitude as in "you look to me you're
> going ballistic on me".

I thought it was pretty clear my ICBM was directed at the amateur-
night level quality of the video, not at the guy who posted the link

You stated your reasons why you think it was ok to post such a video,
I stated that it lowered my opinion of the game devs - seems pretty
fair.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Miguel Ramirez]

>> I see. So you are basically saying that, for instance, Lucasfilm -
>> where this kind of deus ex machina was a usual plot device in their
>> games - were "crap"?
>
> Specific example, please? Because if it is done in a cutscene then it is
> fair; but if you are supposed to protect a cargo with your X-Wing, you
> manage to do it with sweat and blood, and at the end the cargo explodes
> for no reason at all and you get the message "You failed", then, yes, it
> is crap.
>

Loom ending comes to my mind - one of the best endings ever, by the way.
And the example you put regarding the cutscene: whatever you do, you get
the cutscene, and the story moves forward. The cutscene in question was
HMS Sheffield blowing up. And Origin weren't "crap", either, at least not
when they made Wing Commander 3.

So the problem is that you got a "You failed" message in a game? Oh, come
on.

> Another good example are games with linked campaigns, like "Sturmovik".
> At the end the Germans will lose the war, because you cannot change the
> overall course, but you still fly missions tied to a specific moment of
> the war with a fair chance to complete them.
>

That's a quite pointless remark. Harpoon 3 didn't have anything like
"linked campaigns". Just scenarios that were recommended to play in a
specific sequence.

You play an scenario out of a campaign and try to analyze it depriving it
of its context. That's why your arguments aren't convincing at all.

>> The argument should be - in my opinion - more like "Please, specify in
>> your notes that this scenario includes a deus ex machina that
>> preordains its result".
>
> That would be fair, but by putting such a sticker you would run the risk
> that the gamer buys/plays a wargame where he actually has a say about
> what happens on the battlefield, wouldn't you? ^^
>

Let's not confuse the engine with a scenario that runs on the engine,
please. People reading this are intelligent enough to tell the difference.

>> It would have been nice to put it explicitly on the scenario designer's
>> notes.
>
> ...It would have been MANDATORY, so that the player could decide if he
> liked the idea or not *before* wasting one hour of his life. No amount
> of explaining your reasons from a podium with a megaphone will change
> this, believe me.
>

I see. So all this because you wasted *one* hour of your life because of
evaluating the experience provided by an scenario in a campaign by taking
out of its context?

Man, how many rail stations have you burnt down already after you
"wasted" *one* hour waiting for a train? Or, how many doctors have you
killed with that axe you always carry on your backpack while waiting
*one* hour before they told you, "Nah, you're OK, don't waste my time"? I
can go on and on.

This does look as an over the top - I know this is redundant -
overreaction. Like one guy trashing his computer with a keyboard because
- oh surprise - Windows just crapped on his spreadsheets wiping them out.
He had to buy a new computer... with Windows, of course :)

>> I haven't ever played that scenario because I didn't find it
>> interesting, which is something different than thinking that "the guy
>> who designed that is crap".
>
> I agree: by not playing it you can't evaluate it, so it is different.
> Someone who played it - with the results we saw - is instead perfectly
> entitled to think about "the guy who designed that crap".
>

Then starting your lines with "In my opinion" or "I think that" would
help me to understand you better.

>> Let's not forget that an scenario designer can do whatever he pleases.
>
> Very true. And people who play the scenario can judge both it and the
> kind of craft shown by his author the way they want. This is true for
> comic books, movies, restaurants and even building bridges, too. If the
> product is a commercial one this becomes known as "voting with one own
> vallet".
>

Perfectly fair. You'll cast your vote, very much like I'll do when the
time comes for it.

>> That these are possible usually make for interesting games, of course.
>> But I can understand that an scenario like that - think of Kobayashi
>> Maru - can be interesting, educational or even enjoyable.
>
> The Kobayashi Maru scenario didn't cheat and didn't break the rules at
> all. Watch the movie again.
>

Ahem, just watched the movie two weeks ago. Setting those odds was
"cheating" - I can't believe that the Klingon Empire would have so many
cruisers to spare... and that the Federation had so little ships-of-the-
line to send :) And, lest not forget, Kirk didn't get the boot because -
deus ex machina incoming, take cover! - the Vulcan planet was being
ripped apart and the trial was suspended :-)

>> If you didn't like that, the thing a person with some minimum common
>> sense and good faith would do would have been to, say, write an e-mail
>> politely requesting the deus ex-machina to be removed.
>
> Some players did exactly that. The result was the aforementioned
> "megaphone and podium rant" that I linked. Maybe you should read it.
> They were even called "stupid" at the end (the Schiller's quote is wrong
> BTW, but whatever).
>

I don't see any name calling going by labeling anyone as "stupid" there,
Vincenzo. Perhaps my English all of a sudden broke on me, and I can't
read it properly anymore. Let's quote the part of interest, for the sake
of documentation:

[...]
The “Hand of God” trick turned out to work pretty well; the special units
targeted only the specified assets and the “holy cr@p!” effect towards
the player was achieved. Of course this capability had to be used
sparingly and carefully: If a scenario turned unwinnable because of a
“Hand of God” action the players would soon lose interest. For this
reason, the loss of the “morituri” units, while making the scenario
harder, did not make it impossible: In the Falklands scenario, you can
still win after the Sheffield blows up. Likewise, in the WW3 classic
“Clash of the Titans”, you can still win the epic battle even after
unavoidably losing two of your four supercarriers (the preservation of
the carriers is not part of the victory conditions).
[...]

To be honest, this is a very reasonable explanation. Your are rather
saying that Schiller's quote is wrong and claiming that someone is being
branded with the scarlet "S" for stupid. You're not explaining anything.

>> Or, very much like James Kirk, you can edit it out yourself
>
> Let's even put aside that "fixing the game for yourself Total War-like"
> is quite frowned upon by people who just buy the game and expect for it
> to work and be enjoyable. Can you explain how I will be able to edit
> these kind of stunts out of "Command" scenarios IF THE FUCKING SCENARIO
> FILES ARE ENCRYPTED?
>

Yet another very bad comparison. You're mixing three different things
here, Vincenzo:

* The engine (a.k.a. the thing that does the computation)
* The data (a.k.a. the data repository that contains the definition of
the objects that can be processed by the engine)
* The scenario (a.k.a. a selection of a particular set of objects in the
database, arranged in a specific way, and scripts for animating those
objects in some way)

Scenarios will be encrypted if the scenario designers wants it so. So far
as I understand, it's an option. The database might or not be encrypted -
something that I think it's a bad move, but that's their call - and will
more than probably provide with scenario overrides for database objects.
Time will tell, but I think - I hope - they will make the correct
decisions.

Now you mention Total War mods... were they fixing the engine? No, not
really. The same sorry excuse of "tactical combat across the ages" is
there, the same terribly boring strategic game is there, the same AI "if
it flies, shoot it" diplomacy is in place. It's just masked and made more
palatable, but it isn't fixed by any measure.

What Total War modders do are to provide us with scenarios that override
or replace the original game objects databases. Indeed, they are much
more interesting than the ones provided by the game - engine - developer.
Ironically, the players are the ones who realize Total Wars true
potential, not the devs.

As we say in Spain, not by making your point louder - achtung CAPS LOCK
key on! - you'll be more convincing.

>> However, I don't see this *reasonable* things even been considered.
>> Since I think you're a quite intelligent and bright individual, this
>> all smacks of personal enmity due to certain episode we have already
>> discussed on this newsgroup
>
> If you mean the tampering of their own database for Harpoon 3 so that
> scenarios for some reason "unapproved" by them crashed, this is a whole
> different matter, and, if anything, even more reason for concern about
> "Command".
>

Anybody who knows about databases perfectly understands what was the
issue. They broke the data interface - their platform and system primary
keys were changed from the looks of it - something that they were fully
entitled to do, moreso when it was necessary to accomodate more features.
Backwards compatibility is a good thing to have, but it's not always
feasible.

That they didn't offer the tools for users of their database to migrate
their data into the new schema - tools I'm pretty sure they had - is
something I can understand, though I wouldn't do things that way. I'm
more of an "open" standards & tools guy in this respect. I think all you
needed to do was to get in touch with them and ask them - again politely
in amiable terms - to do it for you.

Or - all the rest failing - just learn a bit about databases and figure
out how to make the scenarios work for you. It's not rocket science,
either.

Or did you pay anything for that database? Was there a support contract
signed?

> Anyway, to be clear, I have no "enmity" towards whatsoever: I don't like
> to see lies spreaded about me, true. But I usually limit myself to
> pointing out facts, and to try to separate opinion from fact. *This*
> sometimes causes enmity towards me, but this is their problem :o)

Ok, that's also perfectly fair Vincenzo. Indeed people reads sometimes
too much between the lines. And regarding that - separating fact from
opinion - let me tell you that you have an ally on that enterprise.

However, in this particular topic, it seems that my definitions for
"fact" and "opinion" are a bit different :-)

Cheers,

Miquel.

[Miguel Ramirez]

>> I mean, I don't understand your attitude as in "you look to me you're
>> going ballistic on me".
>
> I thought it was pretty clear my ICBM was directed at the amateur- night
> level quality of the video, not at the guy who posted the link
>
> You stated your reasons why you think it was ok to post such a video, I
> stated that it lowered my opinion of the game devs - seems pretty fair.

Sure, fair enough :) I just was a bit confused.

Miquel.

[Frank E]

On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 12:18:12 +0100, "Vincenzo Beretta"
<vincenzo...@fastwebnet.it> wrote:

>> Too late. I already read enough about it to know that this is
>> not going to be a game for me.
>
>Pity, you could have checked if the final game has some of those amazing
>"The scenario plays by itself and ends up the same way no matter what the
>player does", the developers are famous for.
>
>I and Herman even made a video with one of these scenarios played two times,
>side by side. On one side the player the actually tries to win it, on the
>other side the scenario is let running by itself. The end result, no matter
>what, is the same. It is quite funny to watch, with ships exploding with no
>reason at all and stuff :o)
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwuPiDNMPE4
>
>For those still incredulous, the developers even actively defended this "we
>sell it as a wargame scenario but it actually is an interactive video"
>choice...
>
>http://www.warfaresims.com/?p=962

I'll agree that this type of a mechanism seems pretty silly in a
wargame but damn. If you don't like way that a scenario is
constructed, skip it and play ones that you do enjoy. Their biggest
crime here seems to be that they tried to add a story element to a
game that wasn't designed for it and it doesn't appeal to you. I don't
own H3 but I gather that there are 100s of scenarios out there for it.
Why should anyone care that you don't like some of them?

>...It doesn't matter how any videogame writer worth his salt will tell you
>how breaking the rules and remove control from the player *in those parts of
>the game where he is supposed to be in control* (as opposed to narrative
>cutscenes) is both cheating and bad writing. Yup: even in the games "quoted"
>as examples.
>
>[Which, BTW, makes even more worrying their announcement that in Command
>"scenario files will be encrypted"
>(http://www.warfaresims.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=10706#p45620). Be
>ready for your USS Carl Vinson to eXplode out of the blue, just in case...]
>

OK, anyone care to take the time and clue me in to what I'm missing
here? I didn't think the people making this game where the same people
that are responsible for H3 but I'm seeing the same people that are
usually hating on the Harpoon developers (with good reason from what
I've read) going after these guys and trashing a game that isn't even
in beta yet.

I will admit to going WTF when I read the post linked about.

"The database format is open and the contents accessible, but the
moment you change anything in it the game will refuse to use it. So
practically no third-party DB editing. If you've been following us you
know why."

"The scen files are editable in the scenario editor. If you open them
in an outside app (e.g. Notepad) they are encrypted."

The only reason I can think of to discourage player made scenarios is
that they want to sell a lot of expansion packs. Given the nature of
the harpoon community, this seems counterproductive.

Rgds, Frank

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 19 jan, 14:47, Frank E <fakeaddr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> I will admit to going WTF when I read the post linked about.
>
> "The database format is open and the contents accessible, but the
> moment you change anything in it the game will refuse to use it. So
> practically no third-party DB editing. If you've been following us you
> know why."
>
> "The scen files are editable in the scenario editor. If you open them
> in an outside app (e.g. Notepad) they are encrypted."

<insert Gollum's "my precious" scene>

> The only reason I can think of to discourage player made scenarios is
> that they want to sell a lot of expansion packs. Given the nature of
> the harpoon community, this seems counterproductive.

It's indicative of a funny duality : on the one hand they want to sell
their game, on the other they don't want others to play with their
toys.

True professionals like people messing with their games - it sells
copies

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Giftzwerg]

In article <jf6uka$81l$5...@dont-email.me>, miquel....@gmail.com
says...

>
> Just saw this video on their forums:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_lcO0EZZGw
>
> The only I can say is "Awesome".

And not a card anywhere in sight!

--
Giftzwerg
***
"In short, the myth of Obama?s brilliance was based on his teleprompted
eloquence, the sort of fable that says we should listen to a clueless
Sean Penn or Matt Damon on politics because they can sometimes act
well."
- Victor Davis Hanson

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 19 jan, 15:34, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <jf6uka$81...@dont-email.me>, miquel.rami...@gmail.com

> says...
>
>
>
> > Just saw this video on their forums:
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_lcO0EZZGw
>
> > The only I can say is "Awesome".
>
> And not a card anywhere in sight!

(Sea)Tigers Unleashed ?

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Miguel Ramirez]

> It's indicative of a funny duality : on the one hand they want to sell
> their game, on the other they don't want others to play with their toys.
>

I must say I don't understand this bit about the encryption either very
well.

More like they don't want someone to have an easy time to "rip" the work
by scenario designers. They do indeed seem to welcome others to play with
their tools - scenario making and read-only database - to make the toys.

That's not to say that encrypting the scenarios makes much sense to me.
It's very restrictive. It's introducing a hurdle for users to jump over.
And this hurdle is that of having to ask the scenario designer for the
"key" to "unlock" the scenario.

More than a device to syphon money out of a community, this looks to me
as a mechanism that empowers the scenario designers - who want it - to
decide who can make derivative works from their work. Scenario designers
who don't care about this, can make publicly available the key, or just
set it to empty.

> True professionals like people messing with their games - it sells
> copies
>

I know quite a few "professionals" who don't like at all people messing
with their games (or software in general). I'd rather say "Developers who
trust their potential users like people messing with their games".

Why not take a look at the reasons for they taking this approach? Eddy's
analogy with "[the remnants of] Harpoon community being a tank full of
sharks" isn't far off the mark.

I mean, if they're doing this it's because someone who wanted to style
himself as an scenario designer limited himself just to copy the plain
text specification of an scenario and wiping out all references to the
original author. Or someone setup a website and in order to attract
traffic - and hence revenue from advertising - but not having the time to
develop content for the site decided to take the "easy way" - instead of
asking for permission to the scenario authors - described above. Or if -
even sadder - this "ripping and replacing names" was all about seeing who
had the biggest "e-peen" measured in "number of scenarios available and
done".

If this was a common practice - and worse, something nobody cared about -
I can certainly see it as a reason for the once thriving and lively
Harpoon community to become a memory of the past. As a "legit" designer -
i.e. one who *actually* made his own scenarios - this would have been
extremely discouraging, unless one had a hide thick as that of a
rhinoceros.

I do indeed think that the scenarios they provide with the game should be
completely open, otherwise it would prove hard for people to figure out
how to make their own scenarios. But giving authors - scenario designers
- full power to decide who can make derivates or not... I can't hardly be
against that.

They can even create the framework for a "cottage industry" based on
people making a living out of scenario designing by selling their
scenarios, as that guy who made Victory Games' Vietnam total conversion
into Advanced Tactics.

Cheers,

Miquel.

[Miguel Ramirez]

>> Just saw this video on their forums:
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_lcO0EZZGw
>>
>> The only I can say is "Awesome".
>
> And not a card anywhere in sight!

Hah! :-) That I like card-driven mechanics doesn't mean I hate in
principle anything closely resembling a 1980's Avalon Hill game :)

Miquel.

[Vincenzo Beretta]

> Loom ending comes to my mind - one of the best endings ever, by
> the way.

And of and adventure game, which is fine.

> And the example you put regarding the cutscene: whatever you do,
> you get the cutscene, and the story moves forward. The cutscene
> in question was HMS Sheffield blowing up.

Exacly. I'm not playing the attack on the HMS Sheffield: I'm watching a
video about how the Sheffield blew up. With two important features: A) I can
watch a documentary and B) with a documentary I can relax instead of
following instructions.

> And Origin weren't "crap", either, at least not
> when they made Wing Commander 3.

Generally speaking no. That cheat, however, was crap, and using it to
justify your approach means using crap to justify your approach.

> So the problem is that you got a "You failed" message in a game?
> Oh, come on.

Why, I know that I'm the only one in the whole videogaming world who tries
to get a "You succeeded" message when I play, but still... :o)

> That's a quite pointless remark. Harpoon 3 didn't have anything like
"linked campaigns".

The point of the "pointless remark" is that you can have an overall, fixed,
narrative (done via images, text, cutscenes or all of the above) and *still*
give full control to the player *in the parts where he is involved*, without
cheats.

If in a wargame I'm put in command of the Japanese fleet at Midway, I fully
expect to have a fair chance to do better than Nagumo, and to best Fletcher
and Spruance. Having three of my carriers disappear at Jun 4th, 10:22 AM
because "this is what happened, you moron" an happy player makes me not.

> You play an scenario out of a campaign and try to analyze
> it depriving it of its context. That's why your arguments
> aren't convincing at all.

No. I play a scenario where I succesfully repel a Backfires strike only to
have their targets explode anyway. That's why "podium and megaphones"

arguments aren't convincing at all.

> That would be fair, but by putting such a sticker you would run the risk
> that the gamer buys/plays a wargame where he actually has a say about
> what happens on the battlefield, wouldn't you? ^^

> Let's not confuse the engine with a scenario that runs on the engine

...Or with the track record of those designing scenarios that run of the
engine, just to say...

> please. People reading this are intelligent enough to tell the difference.

I fully hope so.

> I see. So all this because you wasted *one* hour of your life because
> of evaluating the experience provided by an scenario in a campaign
> by taking out of its context?

> Man, how many rail stations have you burnt down already after
> you "wasted" *one* hour waiting for a train?

Well, I wouldn't go so far as to compare a certain kind of scenario
designing skill with the Italian Railways, but be my guest ^^

However, I neither ever burned down my PC after a scenario, NOR I was ever
happy to have wasted an hour waiting for a train.

> - oh surprise - Windows just crapped on his spreadsheets wiping
> them out. He had to buy a new computer... with Windows,
> of course :)

...Or Lynux, Ubuntu, MacOS...

>> I agree: by not playing it you can't evaluate it, so it is different.
>> Someone who played it - with the results we saw - is instead
>> perfectly > entitled to think about "the guy who designed
>> that crap".

> Then starting your lines with "In my opinion" or "I think that"
> would help me to understand you better.

Sorry, but it won't happen. This is because my example is about how
experience *entitles* someone to express that comment - neither it forces
him nor it implies that it is the only comment acceptable.

> Perfectly fair. You'll cast your vote, very much like I'll do when
> the time comes for it.

This is a given: people daily vote with their wallets about JR and Panzer
Corps. Then the votes are collected and the results presented to the
developers.

> Ahem, just watched the movie two weeks ago. Setting those odds
> was "cheating"

No: they were "unsurmoutable odds". This is different. Can you point me
where, in the scenario, the Federation ship just exploded?

> I don't see any name calling going by labeling anyone as "stupid"
> there

"In conclusion: Chris Roberts, you’re damn lucky that Wing Commander was
released in the 1990s. Had you waited just a decade more to realize your
epic vision, you would be dogged time after time in Internet forums and
newsgroups by heckling members of the peanut gallery who, perhaps because
they realize that they’ll never reach up to your level, try instead to bring
you down to their own – and once there, beat you by experience.

Such are the times we live in.

UPDATE: In Call of Duty – Modern Warfare, there is a sequence in which you
do your best to get your player character out of a warzone, only to
(unavoidably) die by the after-effects of a nearby nuclear detonation. No
doubt, the devs of that game will earn their own share of forum idiots
criticizing the “futility” of the whole sequence and the “pre-ordained”
result.

Wasn’t it Schiller who said that, in the face of human stupidity, even gods
fight in vain?"

Alas, we poor lowlife, who will never be able to realize the greatness of
this kind of vision - and so will buy "Panzer Corps" instead (Schiller's
quote is still wrong, BTW).

> Time will tell, but I think - I hope - they will make the correct
> decisions.

> Now you mention Total War mods... were they fixing the engine?
> No, not really.

Well, some of them do: check out the various AI mods, for example.

> the same terribly boring strategic game is there, the same AI "if
> it flies, shoot it" diplomacy is in place. It's just masked and
> made more palatable, but it isn't fixed by any measure.

I think you should check www.twcenter.net more often, since features ranging
from the AI and the diplomatic model are improved, changed, expanded and
rewritten by scores of mods. A Mod like "Third Age 3.0" for Medieval II
rewrites the diplomatic model so to be more in line with Middle Earth's
history - which, as far as I can tell, has nothing to do with European
history in the Middle Ages.

> Ironically, the players are the ones who realize Total Wars
> true potential, not the devs.

My guess: the devs got a clue and release moddable games. They even made a
public apology because "Empire" was harder to mod that other games.

The same does Bethesda for their Elder Scrolls line, BTW: when they announce
that the full modding tools for Skyrim will be available for free within the
end of January, IMHO they demonstrate to have a strong grasp on the clue.

The same can be said about the developer of "Armored Brigade", BTW, but we
already kudosed him a lot and we don't want for him to rest on laurels
instead of developing further the game, don't we? :o)

>> If you mean the tampering of their own database for Harpoon 3 so
>> that scenarios for some reason "unapproved" by them crashed,
>> this is a whole different matter, and, if anything, even more
>> reason for concern about "Command".

> Anybody who knows about databases perfectly understands what
> was the issue.

If only :^(

> They broke the data interface - their platform and system primary
> keys were changed from the looks of it - something that they were
> fully entitled to do, moreso when it was necessary to accomodate
> more features. Backwards compatibility is a good thing to have,
> but it's not always feasible.

This is true. So true that this was not the problem at all. To see what the
problem was, just check the link they provided
(http://www.warfaresims.com/?cat=129). I don't mean "go to the linked page",
just check the very link name:

http://www.forums.gamesquad.com/showthread.php?23874-Unannounced-Database-changes

*UNANNOUNCED* database changes.

This meant that I did a scenario using version, let's say, 6.11 of the
database. Then I told you "Hey, Miguel! Wanna check this scenario I made? It
is for version 6.11 of the database!" You said "Cool! You downloaded v6.11,
ran the scenario, and it crashed. Because the version number was the same,
but the database had been modified, and so there was a database mismatch.

This alone would be grounds for "irresponsibility in DB management". Then,
if really one wants to delve in soap opera, he can always read statements
like:

"[Herman's] first major act of IP theft was the illegal acquisition and use
of the H3-SBR tool. Not being able to use the stolen tool effectively (in
fact, his scens began to crash because of it)..."

...Which become quite funny, given the above :o)

> I think all you needed to do was to get in touch with them
> and ask them - again politely in amiable terms - to do it
> for you.

Ah, yup, the new idea in DRM: "Chain DRM for creativity".

> Or - all the rest failing - just learn a bit about databases and
> figure out how to make the scenarios work for you. It's not
> rocket science, either.

No, it wasn't. A "compare" was all that was needed to see how v6.11 had "USS
Carl Vinson - item #640" while v... er... 6.11 had "USS Carl Vinson - item
#1640" - and then delete the "1".

The problem was contacting your friends and explaining to them that they had
to use the "right" v.6.11, and not the "wrong" v.6.11. You can easily see
how it got complicated fast ^^

> Or did you pay anything for that database? Was there a support
> contract signed?

No, but there was a mutual exchange of (good) work: the database - when
nproperly mantained - was a great tool for scenario designers, while
scenario designers gave to the DB visibility and popularity.

Ah, one last thing. I hope it will be useful to you.

I never bothered to answer to this "definition" you can find on the
developers blog (the rants, for those wondering what the heck of tangent did
this thread took, tie the past attitudes with the current expressed line of
the new game):

"Vincenzo “I will never outgrow my 2005 forum ban” Beretta"

I never bothered to answer this because, as you saw, anyone of average
intelligence can see how they already torpedoed themselves without outside
help (funnily enough this is a ANW bug too).
However my honorable title is worth of analysis for third parties because it
gives you two important facts:

First, the delusional idea by the writer to be part of some "elite,
exclusive circle; so elite that people sent out from the Eden will despair
for the rest of their lives".

Second, given that I was banned for revealing the database mismanagement, it
gives you the rule to remain in the elite club: Omerta.

All of this because, IIUC, you are a fan of Command, its potentiality and
his developers. So, my advice is: thread lightly and listen to all
"friendly" PMs from them giving you "advice". Good luck! :o)

[Miguel Ramirez]

>
> (Sea)Tigers Unleashed ?
>

On nice, accurate maps and a sound game model... I can certainly live
with an spreadsheet (but not too many!).

Cheers,

Miquel.

[Frank E]

On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 05:55:10 -0800 (PST), "eddys...@hotmail.com"
<eddys...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 19 jan, 14:47, Frank E <fakeaddr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I will admit to going WTF when I read the post linked about.
>>
>> "The database format is open and the contents accessible, but the
>> moment you change anything in it the game will refuse to use it. So
>> practically no third-party DB editing. If you've been following us you
>> know why."
>>
>> "The scen files are editable in the scenario editor. If you open them
>> in an outside app (e.g. Notepad) they are encrypted."
>
><insert Gollum's "my precious" scene>
>
>> The only reason I can think of to discourage player made scenarios is
>> that they want to sell a lot of expansion packs. Given the nature of
>> the harpoon community, this seems counterproductive.
>
>It's indicative of a funny duality : on the one hand they want to sell
>their game, on the other they don't want others to play with their
>toys.

This seems to go beyond that though. They appear to be going out of
their way to create extra drama and say 'fuck you' to anyone who wants
to mod the game.

"We've created an open data base that anyone can access but the game
prevents you from actually changing anything."

"We've created a text based scripting language for our scenarios
(otherwise why mention notepad) but we won't let you access the
information."

If they want to lock it down, why go out of their way to point out
that they have an open system all in place, they just don't want
anyone to use it?

>True professionals like people messing with their games - it sells
>copies

Yeah, this whole thing does feel terribly bush league.

Rgds, Frank

[Vincenzo Beretta]

> I'll agree that this type of a mechanism seems pretty silly
> in a wargame but damn. If you don't like way that a scenario
> is constructed, skip it and play ones that you do enjoy.

But I already do that. However, since the designers of "Command" openly
defended the "interactive video" approach, I simply mused "pity that Eddy
won't go on the beta-team: he could, maybe, have told us what kind of
scenarios to expect, so to be able to make an informed decision before
forking the $$$s".

> OK, anyone care to take the time and clue me in to what I'm
> missing here? I didn't think the people making this game
> where the same people that are responsible for H3

No. But, as I said, they designed a lot of scenarios characterized by
"unavoidable events", and, as I said, they defend this choice. Since I
personally don't like it at all, I wonder if this approach will be used in
*their* game too.

> The only reason I can think of to discourage player made
> scenarios is that they want to sell a lot of expansion
> packs. Given the nature of the harpoon community,
> this seems counterproductive.

It *is* counterproductive in a general sense: just look at TOAW for an
example of a successful game where scores of third-party stuff still allowed
for official scenarios and expansions to be published. But this is their
businness and their call.

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 19 jan, 16:00, "Vincenzo Beretta" <vincenzo.bere...@fastwebnet.it>
wrote:

> This is a given: people daily vote with their wallets about JR and Panzer
> Corps. Then the votes are collected and the results presented to the
> developers.

This just in : after going retail in Germany and making it into the
Top 20 sales charts of pc games sold there, Matrix just announced
Panzer Corps will be released retail in Russia as well.

JR who ?

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 19 jan, 15:56, Miguel Ramirez <miquel.rami...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I know quite a few "professionals" who don't like at all people messing
> with their games (or software in general).

Oh sure, they only sell less games.

There's a reason mainstream gaming companies release all those editors
for their games you know - and altruism isn't it.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

Don't forget that We The People, the granddaddy of CDG, was an AH game
too.

It met with a lot of opposition too - only to get totally embraced by
the wargame community much much later - grumpy grogs don't easily
change their mind or ways you know ... and tend to forget later that
they first were totally set against that newfangled card thingie.

Given the commercial success of A Few Acres of Snow - it sold out and
a reprint is announced - it will only be a matter of time before more
and more wargames will start to use this deck-building mechanic. Not
that this will matter one bit to the pc wargame crowd, stuck in the
seventies as they are, but I hope some developer will pick up on it
and create some digital wargame using this mechanic for the tablet
market.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Miguel Ramirez]

> And of and adventure game, which is fine.
>

Ok, you don't find this practice kosher on a wargame setting. Now I *get*
it :)

>> And the example you put regarding the cutscene: whatever you do, you
>> get the cutscene, and the story moves forward. The cutscene in question
>> was HMS Sheffield blowing up.
>
> Exacly. I'm not playing the attack on the HMS Sheffield: I'm watching a
> video about how the Sheffield blew up. With two important features: A) I
> can watch a documentary and B) with a documentary I can relax instead of
> following instructions.
>
>> And Origin weren't "crap", either, at least not when they made Wing
>> Commander 3.
>
> Generally speaking no. That cheat, however, was crap, and using it to
> justify your approach means using crap to justify your approach.
>
>> So the problem is that you got a "You failed" message in a game? Oh,
>> come on.
>
> Why, I know that I'm the only one in the whole videogaming world who
> tries to get a "You succeeded" message when I play, but still... :o)
>

In the context of a campaign game, where you have a "game master", I can
well live with the occasional failure.

>> That's a quite pointless remark. Harpoon 3 didn't have anything like
> "linked campaigns".
>
> The point of the "pointless remark" is that you can have an overall,
> fixed, narrative (done via images, text, cutscenes or all of the above)
> and *still* give full control to the player *in the parts where he is
> involved*, without cheats.
>

In this particular case, I fail to see how a Harpoon scenario can be cut
into bits. A nice feature in Command is that Event Engine, which will
handle that without cheating. By the way, a scenario designer - the game
master - never cheats. And when he does, he's fully entitled to do so :-)
Very much as you're to dislike it :-)

> If in a wargame I'm put in command of the Japanese fleet at Midway, I
> fully expect to have a fair chance to do better than Nagumo, and to best
> Fletcher and Spruance. Having three of my carriers disappear at Jun 4th,
> 10:22 AM because "this is what happened, you moron" an happy player
> makes me not.
>

The argument was more complex than saying to anyone "shut up you moron".

>> You play an scenario out of a campaign and try to analyze it depriving
>> it of its context. That's why your arguments aren't convincing at all.
>
> No. I play a scenario where I succesfully repel a Backfires strike only
> to have their targets explode anyway. That's why "podium and megaphones"
> arguments aren't convincing at all.
>

Hmmm, I don't recall the Argentinian Air Force to have a Regiment of
Backfires at hand. I'm sure though, that they would have *absolutely*
loved to have one of those.

> Well, I wouldn't go so far as to compare a certain kind of scenario
> designing skill with the Italian Railways, but be my guest ^^
>

Spanish railways have improved, but sometimes this happens as well :)

>> - oh surprise - Windows just crapped on his spreadsheets wiping them
>> out. He had to buy a new computer... with Windows, of course :)
>
> ...Or Lynux, Ubuntu, MacOS...
>

The joke was about a guy who only knew about Windows... so he was tied to
that very fine operating system. It's Linux, not Lynux, and neither Linux
(which is just the kernel of the Operating System, by the way) nor Ubuntu
need to be bought. You can download them free of charge (though Ubuntu is
slowly evolving into a small Windows with their Unity crap).

> Sorry, but it won't happen. This is because my example is about how
> experience *entitles* someone to express that comment - neither it
> forces him nor it implies that it is the only comment acceptable.
>

Fair enough.

>> Ahem, just watched the movie two weeks ago. Setting those odds was
>> "cheating"
>
> No: they were "unsurmoutable odds". This is different. Can you point me
> where, in the scenario, the Federation ship just exploded?
>

Note the double quotes and my reference above to the Scenario Designer/
Game Master. And by the way, Kirk's simulated ship didn't blow up,
because he hacked the simulator. It's usually the ship-of-the-line the
one blowing :-)

> Alas, we poor lowlife, who will never be able to realize the greatness
> of this kind of vision - and so will buy "Panzer Corps" instead
> (Schiller's quote is still wrong, BTW).
>

What's the right quote?

>> Now you mention Total War mods... were they fixing the engine? No, not
>> really.
>
> Well, some of them do: check out the various AI mods, for example.
>

You mean the AI scripts? That's not part of the engine, very much like
the 3D models of the units and maps are. It's like saying that the
victory conditions you set in Command Ops are part of the engine. That
is, simply not true.

> I think you should check www.twcenter.net more often, since features
> ranging from the AI and the diplomatic model are improved, changed,
> expanded and rewritten by scores of mods. A Mod like "Third Age 3.0" for
> Medieval II rewrites the diplomatic model so to be more in line with
> Middle Earth's history - which, as far as I can tell, has nothing to do
> with European history in the Middle Ages.
>

I check it regularly, because of the Westeros total conversion. But my
deep dislike - or rather, absolute burn out - of the Total War engine
stands.

> My guess: the devs got a clue and release moddable games. They even made
> a public apology because "Empire" was harder to mod that other games.
>

Creative Assembly got that right. Too bad their games are far too
expensive for what they offer.

> The same does Bethesda for their Elder Scrolls line, BTW: when they
> announce that the full modding tools for Skyrim will be available for
> free within the end of January, IMHO they demonstrate to have a strong
> grasp on the clue.
>

Morrowind, Oblivion, Skyrim: Buggy engine, terrible game design, they
have mod tools. Daggerfall: solid engine, good game design, no mod tools.
And your point is?

> The same can be said about the developer of "Armored Brigade", BTW, but
> we already kudosed him a lot and we don't want for him to rest on
> laurels instead of developing further the game, don't we? :o)
>

In all cases you're confusing the terms Vincenzo. Note the difference I
made between engine, database and scenarios. They're three different
things, which are related, and come packaged together.

Modders don't improve games (which is the three things taken together),
they're actually borrowing the engine in order to make new games, that
inherit the limitations and features of the engine.

>> They broke the data interface - their platform and system primary keys
>> were changed from the looks of it - something that they were fully
>> entitled to do, moreso when it was necessary to accomodate more
>> features. Backwards compatibility is a good thing to have, but it's not
>> always feasible.
>
> This is true. So true that this was not the problem at all. To see what
> the problem was, just check the link they provided
> (http://www.warfaresims.com/?cat=129). I don't mean "go to the linked
> page", just check the very link name:
>
> http://www.forums.gamesquad.com/showthread.php?23874-Unannounced-
Database-changes
>
> *UNANNOUNCED* database changes.
>

I checked the content of the thread linked, Vincenzo. I don't know if
that's a "bad" thing as crossing ghostbusting rays, though :)

> This meant that I did a scenario using version, let's say, 6.11 of the
> database. Then I told you "Hey, Miguel! Wanna check this scenario I
> made? It is for version 6.11 of the database!" You said "Cool! You
> downloaded v6.11, ran the scenario, and it crashed. Because the version
> number was the same, but the database had been modified, and so there
> was a database mismatch.
>

That's what you say. That someone says X doesn't mean that X is true, of
course. If such was the case then, coming forward with copies of the two
versions of the database and pointing to a difference in their checksums,
so people could check by themselves, would have proven what you say.
Nothing like this is in this thread, just a bunch of edited forums posts.

Given that the other party has offered a cogent explanation, I do
sincerely think that his was the most likely sequence of events.

1) ok, they just released 6.11. Time to migrate my scenarios.
2) I use the beta script I got from my buddy.
3) For some reason database object ID's are messed.
4) Oh Sh*t!

> First, the delusional idea by the writer to be part of some "elite,
> exclusive circle; so elite that people sent out from the Eden will
> despair for the rest of their lives".
>

The elite you refer to is that includes those with access with the tools
to migrate the data?

Let me tell you one thing, that it's very *clear*: keeping such tools,
which further the public good away from those who benefit from them, is
something I don't like. But still, that was *their* program and *their*
call to make it public.

> Second, given that I was banned for revealing the database
> mismanagement, it gives you the rule to remain in the elite club:
> Omerta.
>

Complaining about the tool not being public would have been fair.
Covering up for the 1-2-3-4 sequence above is another matter.

Comparisons with the Omerta are bad taste.

> All of this because, IIUC, you are a fan of Command, its potentiality
> and his developers. So, my advice is: thread lightly and listen to all
> "friendly" PMs from them giving you "advice". Good luck! :o)

Two things:

First, by definition, I can't be a "fan" of something I have yet to
enjoy. I just found out something interesting, and came it to share. Very
much like Eddy does. Not everybody finds the things that Eddy posts to be
their cup of tea: just take a look at the A Few Acres of Snow/Twilight
Struggle discussions. That's fair.

Second, the merry fact that I have formal qualifications on databasesand
programming, as well as some experience - not nearly as extensive as that
of others, that's the main reason I started following this group - with
wargames (and especifically in this case Harpoon 3) gives me a vantage
point where, sincerely, none of your arguments hold any water in my eyes.

People with different backgrounds than mine might be easily convinced,
but not me.

Cheers,

Miquel.

[Miguel Ramirez]

> You mean the AI scripts? That's not part of the engine, very much like
> the 3D models of the units and maps are. It's like saying that the
> victory conditions you set in Command Ops are part of the engine. That
> is, simply not true.
>

That should read *very much like the 3D models of the units and maps
aren't*.

Cheers,

Miquel.

[Miguel Ramirez]

> Given the commercial success of A Few Acres of Snow - it sold out and a
> reprint is announced - it will only be a matter of time before more and
> more wargames will start to use this deck-building mechanic. Not that
> this will matter one bit to the pc wargame crowd, stuck in the seventies
> as they are, but I hope some developer will pick up on it and create
> some digital wargame using this mechanic for the tablet market.
>

This is a truly interesting topic, Eddy. How would you reformulate deck
building mechanics so the possibilities of the medium - a computer
simulation - are fully exploited?

Perhaps a nice project could come out of that discussion :)

Cheers,

Miquel.

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 19 jan, 16:46, Miguel Ramirez <miquel.rami...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Given the commercial success of A Few Acres of Snow - it sold out and a
> > reprint is announced - it will only be a matter of time before more and
> > more wargames will start to use this deck-building mechanic. Not that
> > this will matter one bit to the pc wargame crowd, stuck in the seventies
> > as they are, but I hope some developer will pick up on it and create
> > some digital wargame using this mechanic for the tablet market.
>
> This is a truly interesting topic, Eddy. How would you reformulate deck
> building mechanics so the possibilities of the medium - a computer
> simulation - are fully exploited?

Well, in essence it's all about making choices with a delay effect and
build-in uncertainties as to when an option will become available
again. Those things get mechanically translated to cards and decks in
a boardgame. With a computer you need an UI element which you can
shuffle through quickly to look at all your options, then decide which
one you'll pick. Stacked tabs ?

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Miguel Ramirez]

>> This is a truly interesting topic, Eddy. How would you reformulate deck
>> building mechanics so the possibilities of the medium - a computer
>> simulation - are fully exploited?
>
> Well, in essence it's all about making choices with a delay effect and
> build-in uncertainties as to when an option will become available again.
> Those things get mechanically translated to cards and decks in a
> boardgame. With a computer you need an UI element which you can shuffle
> through quickly to look at all your options, then decide which one
> you'll pick. Stacked tabs ?
>

Stacked tabs might be a bit too literal for the types of Giftzwerg, who
would go sniffing around for clues of card-driven impurity before tossing
the two of us into a bonfire.

Now seriously. Yes, that's the idea. From that perspective, AGEOD leader
activation mechanics are the closest thing in a computer wargame. But
those are way *too random* actually: activation doesn't take into account
the player, is just something that happens, like raining.

A way closer thing would be to have *variable* command delays. I think in
Command Ops these are in place, but there's an "upper bound" on those
delays.

Hmmm, coming up with good examples of such mechanics - which aren't
better accounted by high-fidelity modeling - implies moving upwards in
abstraction, perhaps to the strategic level (in a similar way as the BoB
game you mentioned).

Cheers,

Miquel.

[sunb...@gmail.com]

> This seems to go beyond that though. They appear to be going out of
> their way to create extra drama and say 'fuck you' to anyone who wants
> to mod the game.
>
> "We've created an open data base that anyone can access but the game
> prevents you from actually changing anything."
>
> "We've created a text based scripting language for our scenarios
> (otherwise why mention notepad) but we won't let you access the
> information."
>
> If they want to lock it down, why go out of their way to point out
> that they have an open system all in place, they just don't want
> anyone to use it?
>
> >True professionals like people messing with their games - it sells
> >copies
>
> Yeah, this whole thing does feel terribly bush league.
>
> Rgds, Frank

Hi Frank,

A few points to clarify.

1) A scenario editor is built-in with the game and will ship with the game. The video linked in the post that started this thread shows the ease with which one can use this editor to construct a scenario. We are confident that the scenarios produced from the community will easily match, and probably best, the scenarios bundled with the game.

2) The game will probably ship with 2 different databases, together covering the 1945-2020+ period. These databases will not be amendable to _third-party_ editing, but will be continuously updated (in fact, they already are; check this thread for example: http://warfaresims.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=6302) with new research as well as info provided by the game's community. The reason for the no-3rd party policy has to do with past abuse of the database openness in the H2/3 community (see example here: http://www.warfaresims.com/?p=1262).

We have received feedback from the community on ways to counter the obvious negative effects of this restriction, and we are examining them. If we can accommodate the need for per-scenario tinkering of DB values without leaving the DBs open to plagiarism, we will try hard to.

3) Scenarios will be editable in the game's scenario editor. They will, however, not be editable by an external editor e.g. Notepad, since the file's contents are encrypted. This again has to do with preventing wholesale ripping & plagiarism. Members of the game's community have asked for making this encryption optional, so that this protection can be applied selectively (and enable more manipulation of the scenario). We are considering this.

I hope that this addresses your concerns.

Cheers,
Dimitris
WarfareSims.com

[Vincenzo Beretta]

> Ok, you don't find this practice kosher on a wargame setting

No, I don't find it kosher on a lot of genres - almost all, actually.
However, in classic adventures you solve puzzles and enigmas, and you are
rewarded with a new bit of narrative, until you have the wholestory. Same in
most FPS, RPGs etc.

Have you ever wondered why the less "narrative" genre of them all, wargames,
produces the best narrative in videogames, i.e. AARs? Because in other games
meeting challenge is rewarded by a bit of storytelling, whereas in wargames
meeting challenge *actually builds the story*. This is why people follow,
let's say, good War in the Pacific AARs like if they are dramas published
two-three times a week. Just go on AE forum and look for GreyJoy's one.

> In the context of a campaign game, where you have a "game master",
> I can well live with the occasional failure.

Well, I'm the game master of my current D&D campaign and I can assure you of
one thing. Should I ever say "Your courage and your flair for battle killed
the dragon with minimum losses - pity that, you realize, you are dead
anyway..." I will not survive.

> The argument was more complex than saying to anyone "shut up you
> moron".

I saw, I only distilled the significant bit :o)

> Hmmm, I don't recall the Argentinian Air Force to have a Regiment
> of Backfires at hand.

You haven't watched the video I posted, have you?

> (Schiller's quote is still wrong, BTW).

What's the right quote?

It was not Schiller, but *Joan of Arc*, in "Die Jungfrau von Orleans" by
Schiller, who said "Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain."

Now, this may seem nitpicking, but differentiating what a character says
from what his writer says it quite important (or Manzoni would be a stupid
because Don Abbondio says stupid things). Beside, if you don't do that, you
lose the ability to distinguish the real world from fiction - which is, BTW,
a nice sigil to that streak of rants ^^

> Morrowind, Oblivion, Skyrim: Buggy engine, terrible game design,
> they have mod tools.

The jury isstill out on Oblivion, but... Skyrim?? And, re bugs and bad
design decisions, thanks God for the modtools.

> Daggerfall: solid engine, good game design

Daggerfall was probably the most buggy game ever when it got released. Check
its history.

> And your point is?

That when the modding scene became integral part of PC gaming, between 1998
and 2000, Bethesda published "Morrowind" and there are still mods being done
for it even today.

> That's what you say. That someone says X doesn't mean that X is true

I can assure you that some people think that it is :^D

> course. If such was the case then, coming forward with copies of
> the two versions of the database and pointing to a difference
> in their checksums, so people could check by themselves,
> would have proven what you say.

Well, no, because *I* could have manipulated one of the two copies.
Manipulating DBs to make people look bad works two ways...

However, fair enough. I can only point out the LONG explanation about how
OBVIOUSLY DBs are changed (something that no one ever challenged) while the
core of the case, the "unannounced" posted just above, is somehow untouched
^^

> 1) ok, they just released 6.11. Time to migrate my scenarios.
> 2) I use the beta script I got from my buddy.

Ah, yup, the legendary tool. Have you ever seen it, BTW?

> 3) For some reason database object ID's are messed.
> 4) Oh Sh*t!

Either that or *this*: "How to crash a database in six steps"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wY_zJGXx-0Q

But, please, before making a call watch the video this time :o)

> Comparisons with the Omerta are bad taste.

Imagine the Omerta itself, then...

[Frank E]

On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 09:23:04 -0800 (PST), sunb...@gmail.com wrote:

>> This seems to go beyond that though. They appear to be going out of
>> their way to create extra drama and say 'fuck you' to anyone who wants
>> to mod the game.
>>
>> "We've created an open data base that anyone can access but the game
>> prevents you from actually changing anything."
>>
>> "We've created a text based scripting language for our scenarios
>> (otherwise why mention notepad) but we won't let you access the
>> information."
>>
>> If they want to lock it down, why go out of their way to point out
>> that they have an open system all in place, they just don't want
>> anyone to use it?
>>
>> >True professionals like people messing with their games - it sells
>> >copies
>>
>> Yeah, this whole thing does feel terribly bush league.
>>
>> Rgds, Frank
>
>Hi Frank,
>
>A few points to clarify.
>
>1) A scenario editor is built-in with the game and will ship with the game. The video linked in the post that started this thread shows the ease with which one can use this editor to construct a scenario. We are confident that the scenarios produced from the community will easily match, and probably best, the scenarios bundled with the game.
>
>2) The game will probably ship with 2 different databases, together covering the 1945-2020+ period. These databases will not be amendable to _third-party_ editing, but will be continuously updated (in fact, they already are; check this thread for example: http://warfaresims.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=6302) with new research as well as info provided by the game's community. The reason for the no-3rd party policy has to do with past abuse of the database openness in the H2/3 community (see example here: http://www.warfaresims.com/?p=1262).

Seriously? You're planning to sell me a game for $60 (or whatever) and
then you're worried that I'm going to plagiarize your database by
modifying it? That makes absolutely no sense.

Let me also point out that there's no such thing as a perfect
database. There are always going to be gray areas where knowledgable
people disagree. Would you rather have them bitching to you about
changing it or just let them change things on their own to be more in
line with what they believe is right.

>We have received feedback from the community on ways to counter the obvious negative effects of this restriction, and we are examining them. If we can accommodate the need for per-scenario tinkering of DB values without leaving the DBs open to plagiarism, we will try hard to.

Not only should you 'leave it open to plagiarism', you should be
embracing it! You should take it as a complement to your game that
anybody cares enough to dig into the DB. They're almost certainly
adding value to your product and it's not costing you a dime.
Insulting those people by calling it plagiarism is just stupid.

>
>3) Scenarios will be editable in the game's scenario editor. They will, however, not be editable by an external editor e.g. Notepad, since the file's contents are encrypted. This again has to do with preventing wholesale ripping & plagiarism.

Again, why do you care?

Rgds, Frank

[Miguel Ramirez]

> No, I don't find it kosher on a lot of genres - almost all, actually.
> However, in classic adventures you solve puzzles and enigmas, and you
> are rewarded with a new bit of narrative, until you have the wholestory.
> Same in most FPS, RPGs etc.
>
> Have you ever wondered why the less "narrative" genre of them all,
> wargames, produces the best narrative in videogames, i.e. AARs? Because
> in other games meeting challenge is rewarded by a bit of storytelling,
> whereas in wargames meeting challenge *actually builds the story*. This
> is why people follow, let's say, good War in the Pacific AARs like if
> they are dramas published two-three times a week. Just go on AE forum
> and look for GreyJoy's one.
>

Thanks for the heads up. If one day I decide to go back to the mess
WitP:AE was, I will. Is it better than the ones by Cuttlefish?

That wargames the best narrative in videogames is a *highly* debatable
topic. And regarding WitP AAR's, the best ever was the one by Cuttlefish.
I lost interest in WitP a year and a half ago. And I think it was too
late. You won't hear me moaning around places "Hey, give me back those
years of my life".

>> In the context of a campaign game, where you have a "game master", I
>> can well live with the occasional failure.
>
> Well, I'm the game master of my current D&D campaign and I can assure
> you of one thing. Should I ever say "Your courage and your flair for
> battle killed the dragon with minimum losses - pity that, you realize,
> you are dead anyway..." I will not survive.
>

Hmmm, really? Who are you playing with? Sixteen year olds? Come up with a
*good* story and I'll let your dragon disintegrate my character at any
time (or kill half the Starks). Be sadistic like that without a good
story and then that will be the last time I play (or I read you) with you.

>> The argument was more complex than saying to anyone "shut up you
>> moron".
>
> I saw, I only distilled the significant bit :o)
>

Or misrepresented the argument.

>> Hmmm, I don't recall the Argentinian Air Force to have a Regiment of
>> Backfires at hand.
>
> You haven't watched the video I posted, have you?
>

What video Vincenzo? I can't find any youtube link in your previous
messages.

> Now, this may seem nitpicking, but differentiating what a character says
> from what his writer says it quite important (or Manzoni would be a
> stupid because Don Abbondio says stupid things). Beside, if you don't do
> that, you lose the ability to distinguish the real world from fiction -
> which is, BTW, a nice sigil to that streak of rants ^^
>

You said it all. I find that like saying that it wasn't Murdoch the one
speaking when the sock puppet spoke, but the sock puppet itself. To be
honest, it's not only nit-picking but also "correct" in the sense that
Romantics just picked up historical characters and used them to their
leisure to put forward the values or whatever the author wanted.

>> That's what you say. That someone says X doesn't mean that X is true
>
> I can assure you that some people think that it is :^D
>
>> course. If such was the case then, coming forward with copies of the
>> two versions of the database and pointing to a difference in their
>> checksums, so people could check by themselves, would have proven what
>> you say.
>
> Well, no, because *I* could have manipulated one of the two copies.
> Manipulating DBs to make people look bad works two ways...
>

Vincenzo, when you will realize you sound like someone who doesn't have a
clue at all about databases and worse, pretend that nobody knows about
those?

> However, fair enough. I can only point out the LONG explanation about
> how OBVIOUSLY DBs are changed (something that no one ever challenged)
> while the core of the case, the "unannounced" posted just above, is
> somehow untouched ^^
>

Sigh. They released new database version, they change the ID's for many
objects in the database. Were they supposed to announce it in any way? I
mean, like sending e-mails to people or anything? Seems not

http://forums.gamesquad.com/showthread.php?23949-Official-request-to-
Don&p=294190&viewfull=1#post294190
[...]
A little bit of information about the DB2k and Scenarios created.

First and foremost the database 2000 is not a product of AGSI but a
product of Ragnar Emsoy. The game comes with a db editor and Ragnar has
consistently updated and developed into a resource all parties use. For
those of you into metrics this is easily 1000's of hours of work. He has
done so tirelessly and doesn't charge a dime for it. It is a resource
freely distributed to the community because he likes the game and he is
doing a service to the players.

Now because its updated regularly there has always been an understanding
that as the database is updated the scenarios must be updated too because
the database version and the scenario must match. Ragnar does maintain
and update scenarios on his site however he has never been responsible or
the scenarios on other people's sites or hard drives. That is a
reasonable expectation because the knowledge on how to do it is provided.

Now from what Herman/Vince have pinned up on your board (with screenshots
and all) they are claiming that the database changed. This is not news as
its updated all the time and certainly not the responsibility of Ragnar
to fix. It is Ragnars database and he can do what he wishes with it. It
is up to Herman and the scenario writers to learn how to update their
scenarios to the database they are using.

If Herman wishes to host and maintain scenarios using the DB2k it is his
responsibility to keep them properly updated. It is not Ragnar's. He just
provides the resource and is by no means obligated into some sort of
service or social contract. All of these errors can be rectified by
opening the scenario deleting the bad units and entering new one's. This
is nothing new and not all that difficult. Seriously about 10 seconds per
unit. It just requires the motivation to do so.

Now if folks don't like this thats okay. There are other databases out
there and more importantly a database editor. So they have the ability to
create and use other databases if they don't like how Ragnar updates his
database or does business.
[...]

So don't give me any "unannounced" crap. Eventually the layout of the
Database on which Ragnar was working changed so much with respect the
layout of the database, that the ancient version of the object ID
remapping tool some people acquired stopped working. In other words, that
was previously the usual practice - download Ragnar's database, make a
pass over your scenarios to make them conform the DB layout with an old
version of an script - just, out of the blue, stopped working.

Why couldn't you find someone with some programming knowledge to write
for you guys your own tool? Wasn't anybody like that in your circle of
Harpooners? Sincerely, that's very unlikely.

It's bad to keep "secret" such tools? Yes, it is. Because if they prove
to be really useful, some people who really want it will go very far in
order to get it. That I've already granted you: keeping tools that
further the "public" good away from the public isn't a good thing in my
book.

>> 1) ok, they just released 6.11. Time to migrate my scenarios. 2) I use
>> the beta script I got from my buddy.
>
> Ah, yup, the legendary tool. Have you ever seen it, BTW?
>

Not "legendary", it's something that anybody who has worked as a Database
Manager has written at least once. So I don't need to see it, because I
just wrote a similar tool *two days ago* in a different context for a
different kind of database, just for the very same reasons Ragnar wrote
his tool. If I can do it in my spare time or between breaks at work, why
should I presume nobody else can?

It doesn't precisely sound to me as black magic at all. To others,
perhaps it sounds like writing new pages in the Necronomicon. But
actually it's a quite worldly affair.

>> 3) For some reason database object ID's are messed. 4) Oh Sh*t!
>
> Either that or *this*: "How to crash a database in six steps"
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wY_zJGXx-0Q
>
> But, please, before making a call watch the video this time :o)
>

Now you provide the link. But let me remind you that videos aren't
arguments, illustrate arguments. And your "argument" is that changing
fields that are primary key of a DB register is bad news for applications
trying to process documents trying to ? That's *so* enlightening
Vincenzo... I already understood the problem you were having, by the way.

Are you saying this to me or it's a gesture to the "gallery"?

And I wonder what was kind of agreement was between DB2000 author and
maintainer and "unaffiliated" scenario designers, as this guy pointed out
very clearly 7!!! years ago

http://forums.gamesquad.com/showthread.php?23949-Official-request-to-
Don&p=294207&viewfull=1#post294207

[...]
Well let me ask you this. Why wasn't Ragnar contacted ahead of time and
why was it posted directly to a third party user lists. Was it looking
for a resolution or was it looking for a very public argument? Why was it
posted twice to your list and once pinned? (Ahead of AGSI support links I
might add). Just looks like a problem was being looked for rather than
asked about.

Now in terms of practice, Rag lays out his policies here.

http://www.harpoonhq.com/harpoon3/instructions.html

He clearly says that he's only responsible for scenarios on the HHQ and
not other websites. The only guarantee is that he'll maintain the HHQ's.
So up to other other sites to guarantee the quality on their own. That
means double checking and doing the work it takes to maintain Harpoon
scenarios.

In terms of purposefully changing the values to screw up another's work.
It certainly looks that way from what Reck posted and how he posted it.
However the database is updated all the time and I don't think Ragnar
needs to be hung up on some cross for it.

Personally I think if Vince had just emailed Rag and asked whats up to
begin with all this noise would have never happened. Instead we needed to
incite the mob.....and I don't think it was just because of a screwy
database update thats for sure.
[...]

Note the first sentence in the last paragraph, Vincenzo. If you had
written that e-mail, we wouldn't be discussing this.

Now I've spent more than an hour writing this rather than going home.
Should I get mad at you because "you made me waste an hour of my life"?

Again: "Common seeeeeeeense, where art ya?"

Cheers,

Miquel.

[Miguel Ramirez]

> arguments, illustrate arguments. And your "argument" is that changing
> fields that are primary key of a DB register is bad news for
> applications trying to process documents trying to ? That's *so*

Now that's an example of "thinking in Spanish and writing in English".
Sorry guys for not coming out coherently. But I do like to re-read what I
write on the Internet.

That should read:

And you "argument" is that changing fields that are primary key in a
relational database is bad new for applications that rely on snapshots of
the database?

That's something who knows about databases learn in the trade: either
developing a web application which is exporting data for batch processing
by a server application or developing a videogame :-)

A couple things more (since it's so late and I'll need a cab to get back
home, it doesn't matter anymore):

1) Why didn't you write that e-mail to Ragnar, Vincenzo? Can you tell us
7 years after the deed?

2) In the video you linked you were compacting a Microsoft Access
database (see the pop-up that comes up just in between 0:45 and 1:00),
afterwards we can see you clicking the option on the menu. That's a bit
weird, causes (clicking on buttons) usually go before effects (pop-ups
telling you stuff), not the other way around.

3) What happens when one compacts an Access Database?

Let me explain to you that when a register is deleted from a relational
database, most implementations do not change the layout on the disk of
the data in order to not have to recompute indices - i.e. internal tables
which allow to speed up look up of data based by making queries over its
primary key in a WHERE statement for instance - and other stuff
particular to the database management system you use.

That's a delicate operation you don't do on a whim, Vincenzo (regardless
of what M$ "documentation" says). These indices don't get recomputed
every time you drop a register from a table for a variety of good
reasons. The first one that comes into my mind is efficiency and
potential inconsistencies when dropping a collection of registers
(because primary or foreign keys becoming invalid).

So let's say, a few registers were deleted somewhere. Something perfectly
reasonable that hardly can be used as proof of malignant intention.

Compact & Repair changes the layout in the disk, removing dead references
and probably changing the values of any Automatic ID fields in your
tables. Then you take an snapshot - by exporting it to the Harpoon
format. You make an scenario. Then you use a different database, which
hasn't got applied Compact & Repair. You export that one. You try to load
the scenario - originally made with compacted and "repaired" version of
the database - with a copy of the un-compacted database. You more than
probably just shot yourself in the foot, Vincenzo.

Cheers,

Miquel.

[Giftzwerg]

In article <jf9gid$2oh$2...@dont-email.me>, miquel....@gmail.com
says...

> Stacked tabs might be a bit too literal for the types of Giftzwerg, who
> would go sniffing around for clues of card-driven impurity before tossing
> the two of us into a bonfire.

Hmmm. Even with the knowledge that this paragraph is firmly tongue-in-
cheek, I'd say it's you guys who are bent on preaching the siren song of
"cards," whereas I'm just the dog in the manger observing that "cards"
are just another way of compromising the power of the PC with the notion
that "it needs to work on paper first."

A better compromise? Maybe. You haven't convinced me. But where I
come from is the position that "CRTs" or "cards" are both *bad*
representations of a real-world military situation when our purpose here
is discussing how to leverage the properties of increasingly capable
computers to directly represent military realities.

[Giftzwerg]

In article <GFsYT2KWZCG4lR...@4ax.com>,
fakea...@hotmail.com says...

> Not only should you 'leave it open to plagiarism', you should be
> embracing it! You should take it as a complement to your game that
> anybody cares enough to dig into the DB. They're almost certainly
> adding value to your product and it's not costing you a dime.
> Insulting those people by calling it plagiarism is just stupid.

I dunno. Here I would observe quite simply that one of the worst
disasters to befall HARPOON2-X was the proliferation of "databases" that
were mutually incompatible and ended up as vexing trouble-spots for
aspiring players.

I know I fall into that category.

[Bostonmyk]

On Jan 19, 1:54 pm, Frank E <fakeaddr...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Hi Frank,

We've moved the mod capability from the database to the scenario. You
can add and remove mounts, sensors, weapons and the rebuilder lets you
do a couple of neat things which for the most part is what editors
want to do. So we're not exactly taking away and a freeze on db edit
capability isn't set in stone. The nice part is we can go another way
if it turns out to be a bad decision.

The driver behind all this is to minimize mismatch issues as Gifty
mentioned and prevent the community from screwing each other over by
stealing each others work.

Thanks

MM



Thanks

MM

[Bostonmyk]

On Jan 19, 2:19 am, "eddyster...@hotmail.com"
<eddyster...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 18 jan, 23:45, Bostonmyk <boston...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > When and if we do an open beta can you take a look and give some input
> > on our interface? We really want to do a good job.
>
> Too late. I already read enough about it to know that this is not
> going to be a game for me. Too detailed and not enough abstraction. I
> realize that those details are the heart of the game and in there by
> design and more power to you if you like that.
>
> Nevertheless, purely out of curiosity I sure would have appreciated a
> video that was a) clear and b) had some audio which explained what was
> going on. But a 13 minute grainy image video of a guy clicking left
> and right on unreadable menu-options ?  What idiot thought that was a
> good idea to promote the game ?
>
> Greetz,
>
> Eddy Sterckx

The game is very detailed but I think its pretty approachable.

Thanks for your input on the video Eddy. I am not really sure how to
say "no" to anyone trying to help out but will try and do better in
the future

MM

[Bostonmyk]

The only thing that ever really gets me annoyed is they're missing the
best opportunity they'll ever have to get the game they want beyond
building one themselves. Much of our game development has been driven
by implementing things that people request and given some effort they
could have been in positions to make big design decisions. Its a big
bummer especially if you consider that the alternative doesn't seem to
going anywhere but as one big bug collection on utube.

MM

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 20 jan, 00:45, Bostonmyk <boston...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks for your input on the video Eddy. I am not really sure how to
> say "no" to anyone trying to help out

It's called an NDA.

That way you don't need to say "no", and you only say "yes" to stuff
that actually gives a good first impression of your game. But I'm sure
you figured that out already.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 19 jan, 23:04, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <jf9gid$2o...@dont-email.me>, miquel.rami...@gmail.com

> says...
>
> > Stacked tabs might be a bit too literal for the types of Giftzwerg, who
> > would go sniffing around for clues of card-driven impurity before tossing
> > the two of us into a bonfire.
>
> Hmmm.  Even with the knowledge that this paragraph is firmly tongue-in-
> cheek, I'd say it's you guys who are bent on preaching the siren song of
> "cards," whereas I'm just the dog in the manger observing that "cards"
> are just another way of compromising the power of the PC with the notion
> that "it needs to work on paper first."

A world-class wargame developer with above average programming skills
might be able to create a pc wargame that goes beyond hex & counters
and doesn't suck. Lesser mortals better go through many iterations on
paper to make sure their wargame works as a game before they start
coding.

You know that challenge that got talked about in here ? A pc wargame
developed in a year. Well, I'm happy to say that we've already beta-
tested the paper design twice, both resulting in rather radical
changes. Changes that for an idiot who would have started coding
immediatly would have meant re-doing months of work - or, and this is
the sad reality of pc wargame design : it wouldn't get redone, because
too much work got sunk into it already and developers just hate to
throw that all away.

That's why so many pc wargames have seriously over- or underdeveloped
pieces : their design never got tested until it was too late.

> A better compromise?  Maybe.  You haven't convinced me.  But where I
> come from is the position that "CRTs" or "cards" are both *bad*
> representations of a real-world military situation when our purpose here
> is discussing how to leverage the properties of increasingly capable
> computers to directly represent military realities.

I've said it before and I'm saying it again : I'm a design for effect
guy. I don't give a hoot whether a developer uses cards or crt's or
even ouija boards, I just look at what effect it has on the game and
if it forces me to make the same tough choices the commander at the
time had to make.

Oh, and yes, my design has cards - lots of them :)

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Miguel Ramirez]

> could have been in positions to make big design decisions. Its a big
> bummer especially if you consider that the alternative doesn't seem to
> going anywhere but as one big bug collection on utube.
>

This last bit is a particularly sad affair.

Cheers,

Miquel.

[Miguel Ramirez]

> You know that challenge that got talked about in here ? A pc wargame
> developed in a year. Well, I'm happy to say that we've already beta-
> tested the paper design twice, both resulting in rather radical changes.
> Changes that for an idiot who would have started coding immediatly would
> have meant re-doing months of work - or, and this is the sad reality of
> pc wargame design : it wouldn't get redone, because too much work got
> sunk into it already and developers just hate to throw that all away.
>

Interesting and happy news :) Keep us posted on this, please. And if you
need help with the programming or anything technical, let me tell you
have one here who can help and would be delighted to do so just for the
sake of a unfortunately somewhat sleepy hobby.

Cheers,

Miquel.

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

Step 1 : get it working as a game
Step 2 : get it out there as a free print&play or POD publication
Step 3 : convert it to digital format

Believe it or not, but Step 1 is the most difficult part :)

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Giftzwerg]

In article <e9f6c1ca-aae6-4e26-b4d6-1973bfc426b9@
1g2000yqv.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...

> > Hmmm.  Even with the knowledge that this paragraph is firmly tongue-in-
> > cheek, I'd say it's you guys who are bent on preaching the siren song of
> > "cards," whereas I'm just the dog in the manger observing that "cards"
> > are just another way of compromising the power of the PC with the notion
> > that "it needs to work on paper first."
>
> A world-class wargame developer with above average programming skills
> might be able to create a pc wargame that goes beyond hex & counters
> and doesn't suck. Lesser mortals better go through many iterations on
> paper to make sure their wargame works as a game before they start
> coding.

<shrug>

Then they'll end up with a mediocre, compromised, and thoroughly
forgettable PC game - regardless of how "modern" their paper & pencil
rules are.

[Giftzwerg]

In article <7ffccf94-b8c1-4d8b-b8de-0a2798b1bf48
@g41g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...

> > Interesting and happy news :) Keep us posted on this, please. And if you
> > need help with the programming or anything technical, let me tell you
> > have one here who can help and would be delighted to do so just for the
> > sake of a unfortunately somewhat sleepy hobby.
>
> Step 1 : get it working as a game
> Step 2 : get it out there as a free print&play or POD publication
> Step 3 : convert it to digital format
>
> Believe it or not, but Step 1 is the most difficult part :)

The three games I most play would not exist if the designers had
followed this appallingly bad advice.

[Miguel Ramirez]

> Step 1 : get it working as a game
> Step 2 : get it out there as a free print&play or POD publication Step 3
> : convert it to digital format
>
> Believe it or not, but Step 1 is the most difficult part :)
>

I believe it Eddy :)

Cheers,

Miquel.

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 20 jan, 12:12, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <7ffccf94-b8c1-4d8b-b8de-0a2798b1bf48

> @g41g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, eddyster...@hotmail.com says...

>
> > > Interesting and happy news :) Keep us posted on this, please. And if you
> > > need help with the programming or anything technical, let me tell you
> > > have one here who can help and would be delighted to do so just for the
> > > sake of a unfortunately somewhat sleepy hobby.
>
> > Step 1 : get it working as a game
> > Step 2 : get it out there as a free print&play or POD publication
> > Step 3 : convert it to digital format
>
> > Believe it or not, but Step 1 is the most difficult part :)
>
> The three games I most play would not exist if the designers had
> followed this appallingly bad advice.

Brilliant designer don't need to follow my advice, this advice is
meant for the rest of them.

This is a numbers game.

The amount of people who can design a good game is limited - you need
only check the BGG developer's forum to see that.

The subset of those who can design a good wargame is even more
limited.

The infinitesimal small portion of those who are also good at
programming produce 1 great pc wargame every 3 years.

But, wait, what if you weren't looking at just that small overlap
between great designers and good coders, but could convince good
coders to take one of those great designs and convert that to a
digital format ?

Just look at what got released in 2011 and tell me 95% of them
wouldn't have been better games if the developer had spend his coding
time on someone else's design instead of his own.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Miguel Ramirez]

> Just look at what got released in 2011 and tell me 95% of them wouldn't
> have been better games if the developer had spend his coding time on
> someone else's design instead of his own.
>

On a side note, I must say that the designer knows something about
programming and software development in general is a good thing. He'll
understand the language the programmer speaks and have a good impression
of how the programmer's mind work. The same for the programmer, he needs
to know and *care* about what he's actually programming at some level, in
order to deliver something that resembles the designer's vision.

*Effective communication* - too bad we humans can't switch to "hive mind"
mode at will - is one of the most important things to deliver software
within budget and deadlines.

Cheers,

Miquel.

[HermanH]

On Jan 19, 1:09 pm, Miguel Ramirez <miquel.rami...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> The argument was more complex than saying to anyone "shut up you
> >> moron".
>
> > I saw, I only distilled the significant bit :o)
>
> Or misrepresented the argument.

Or ignored it altogether.

> >> Hmmm, I don't recall the Argentinian Air Force to have a Regiment of
> >> Backfires at hand.
>
> > You haven't watched the video I posted, have you?
>
> What video Vincenzo? I can't find any youtube link in your previous
> messages.

Here it is, since you missed it the first time: "To Help a Friend"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwuPiDNMPE4

> >> course. If such was the case then, coming forward with copies of the
> >> two versions of the database and pointing to a difference in their
> >> checksums, so people could check by themselves, would have proven what
> >> you say.

That would only have been possible if the various tampered versions of
the database were posted directly to that thread since their host site
had already removed them. Unfortunately, the DB authors would have
been within their rights to request removal of such attachments.
Thankfully, copies of the manipulated databases remain in my archives
and are available upon request.

>
> > Well, no, because *I* could have manipulated one of the two copies.
> > Manipulating DBs to make people look bad works two ways...
>
> Vincenzo, when you will realize you sound like someone who doesn't have a
> clue at all about databases and worse, pretend that nobody knows about
> those?

It's obvious you didn't bother to compare checksums, either. I have
the sabotaged zip files in question if you would like to do so at this
time. Or, you can ask for a copy from your colleagues. Just make
sure you get all four of them. I'll even give you a hint: their
release dates were 06/02/2005, 11/02/2005, 10/03/2005, and
12/03/2005. We can simultaneously reveal the checksums publicly on
this forum.

> > However, fair enough. I can only point out the LONG explanation about
> > how OBVIOUSLY DBs are changed (something that no one ever challenged)
> > while the core of the case, the "unannounced" posted just above, is
> > somehow untouched ^^
>
> Sigh. They released new database version, they change the ID's for many
> objects in the database. Were they supposed to announce it in any way? I
> mean, like sending e-mails to people or anything? Seems not

Sigh, all 30+ previous [and 10 post] Y2kDB releases came with a new
version number yet this version 6.5.24 came out four times with the
exact same version number Couple this phenomenon with the fact that
the only scenarios to have a problem with it were those not hosted on
that site. Now, you may believe in intelligent design, infinite
monkeys pounding on infinite keyboards, or cosmic chance to explain
this correlation. Everyone else has already arrived at their own
conclusions.

Common sense, where art thou?

Unfortunately, *Unannounced* is the entire point of the thread and not
the fact that changes were made. The very crux of the matter was that
the changes were *Unannounced*. The fact that they were deliberately
released in a manner intended to disguise the fact that they were ever
made or, that they were intended to crash scenarios made by others is
secondary. Since they weren't going to announce it, other users of
that database had to be warned. So, don't give me any crap about how
these changes were normal adjustments and additions.

>
> Why couldn't you find someone with some programming knowledge to write
> for you guys your own tool? Wasn't anybody like that in your circle of
> Harpooners? Sincerely, that's very unlikely.
>
> It's bad to keep "secret" such tools? Yes, it is. Because if they prove
> to be really useful, some people who really want it will go very far in
> order to get it. That I've already granted you: keeping tools that
> further the "public" good away from the public isn't a good thing in my
> book.

There's no point in writing something that wasn't needed. Instead,
the PlayersDB (nee H3DB) was specifically created so that no such tool
would ever be needed. Apparently, only the Y2kDB needed such
utilities to avoid crashes.

>
> >> 1) ok, they just released 6.11. Time to migrate my scenarios. 2) I use
> >> the beta script I got from my buddy.
>
> > Ah, yup, the legendary tool. Have you ever seen it, BTW?
>
> Not "legendary", it's something that anybody who has worked as a Database
> Manager has written at least once. So I don't need to see it, because I
> just wrote a similar tool *two days ago* in a different context for a
> different kind of database, just for the very same reasons Ragnar wrote
> his tool. If I can do it in my spare time or between breaks at work, why
> should I presume nobody else can?
>
> It doesn't precisely sound to me as black magic at all. To others,
> perhaps it sounds like writing new pages in the Necronomicon. But
> actually it's a quite worldly affair.

I'm getting the impression that you are talking about something you
have never seen nor had any direct experience. Have you ever seen/
tried this ficticious tool? Because I never have : o)

A mythical tool that (supposedly) anyone can write is hidden and held
back for mysterious reasons when anyone and his grandmother can simply
write one and compile it on their own. While they are at it, folks
may as well de-bug their version of Harpoon at the same time. By all
means, let's see this miracle utility that you claim is so easy to
write from such an expert as yourself. Shouldn't take you more than
15 minutes, of course.

>
> >> 3) For some reason database object ID's are messed. 4) Oh Sh*t!
>
> > Either that or *this*: "How to crash a database in six steps"
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wY_zJGXx-0Q
>
> > But, please, before making a call watch the video this time :o)
>
> Now you provide the link. But let me remind you that videos aren't

> arguments, illustrate arguments. And your "argument" is that changing
> fields that are primary key of a DB register is bad news for applications

> trying to process documents trying to ? That's *so* enlightening
> Vincenzo... I already understood the problem you were having, by the way.

Thank you for yet more confirmation that the database changes caused
crashes.

> Are you saying this to me or it's a gesture to the "gallery"?

Actually, videos are simply proof positive for those who are unwilling
or unable to do their own examination. Better yet, they show everyone
the steps involved in reproducing problems for themselves so as not to
rely upon the claims of others.

Notice the words *Unannounced* and "warning" in the thread title?

"A warning about unannounced changes in DB2000"
http://forums.gamesquad.com/showthread.php?23914-A-warning-about-unannounced-changes-in-DB2000

Why would Ragnar need to be warned about his own unannounced changes?
The only ones who need such a dire warning would be his own users and
victims.

Had you noticed those words, you would not have wasted an hour of your
life and mine. Luckily, I am able to multi-task and help create new
video AARs and scenarios at the same time.

More importantly, why wasn't the PlayersDB author contacted by e-mail
instead of false accusations being made first? Was Ragnar looking for
a resolution or a very public spectacle?

On Jan 19, 1:42 pm, Miguel Ramirez <miquel.rami...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > arguments, illustrate arguments. And your "argument" is that changing
> > fields that are primary key of a DB register is bad news for
> > applications trying to process documents trying to ? That's *so*
>
> Now that's an example of "thinking in Spanish and writing in English".
> Sorry guys for not coming out coherently. But I do like to re-read what I
> write on the Internet.

Yup. You are in good company with those who simply enjoy the sound of
their own voice.

>
> That should read:
>
> And you "argument" is that changing fields that are primary key in a
> relational database is bad new for applications that rely on snapshots of
> the database?
>
> That's something who knows about databases learn in the trade: either
> developing a web application which is exporting data for batch processing
> by a server application or developing a videogame :-)
>
> A couple things more (since it's so late and I'll need a cab to get back
> home, it doesn't matter anymore):
>
> 1) Why didn't you write that e-mail to Ragnar, Vincenzo? Can you tell us
> 7 years after the deed?
>
> 2) In the video you linked you were compacting a Microsoft Access
> database (see the pop-up that comes up just in between 0:45 and 1:00),
> afterwards we can see you clicking the option on the menu. That's a bit
> weird, causes (clicking on buttons) usually go before effects (pop-ups
> telling you stuff), not the other way around.
>
> 3) What happens when one compacts an Access Database?

Nothing material occurs when you issue the Compact and Repair Database
command in the Reimer Editor. It simply removes any supplemental /
intermediary steps used during some internal processes employed by the
*.MDB file and does not modify the contents of the exported Harpoon
database (*.DAT) files, itself (as any basic MSAccess database user
would already have known.)

>
> Let me explain to you that when a register is deleted from a relational
> database, most implementations do not change the layout on the disk of
> the data in order to not have to recompute indices - i.e. internal tables
> which allow to speed up look up of data based by making queries over its
> primary key in a WHERE statement for instance - and other stuff
> particular to the database management system you use.
>
> That's a delicate operation you don't do on a whim, Vincenzo (regardless
> of what M$ "documentation" says). These indices don't get recomputed
> every time you drop a register from a table for a variety of good
> reasons. The first one that comes into my mind is efficiency and
> potential inconsistencies when dropping a collection of registers
> (because primary or foreign keys becoming invalid).
>
> So let's say, a few registers were deleted somewhere. Something perfectly
> reasonable that hardly can be used as proof of malignant intention.
>
> Compact & Repair changes the layout in the disk, removing dead references
> and probably changing the values of any Automatic ID fields in your
> tables. Then you take an snapshot - by exporting it to the Harpoon
> format. You make an scenario. Then you use a different database, which
> hasn't got applied Compact & Repair. You export that one. You try to load
> the scenario - originally made with compacted and "repaired" version of
> the database - with a copy of the un-compacted database. You more than
> probably just shot yourself in the foot, Vincenzo.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Miquel.

By all means, do exactly as you have suggested. In fact, make a video
of it to show exactly who knows what about Harpoon and how little
which of us knows about databases and the game.

Had you bothered to actually use the database editor, you would have
seen for yourself how utterly silly your suggestion was and saved
yourself a world of embarrassment. Instead, you shot off your mouth
and showed your own ignorance to the world. This new claim was so
easy to de-bunk that we've already gone ahead and created the video to
demonstrate, as usual, who actually knows how Harpoon works and who
doesn't.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZMzJjC6y1A

Notice that we added the "v2" designation to the video name to show
that a new video version had been posted and not simply re-released.
This is how professionals do it. Don't be fooled by the ability to
throw around big words. It may impress you, but it doesn't impress
everyone. You just have been shown how the Reimer database editor
works by someone without a single technical, database, or programming
credential. I don't doubt about your technical expertise, but you
should also put it - you know - TO USE.

Details researched and tested by you would be more welcome but,
lacking those, you can always fall back on the pre-packaged feeds by
the developers - it already happened once before when this non-Greek-
speaking pawn was sacrificed as a dupe: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=1789909

Guess he should have changed his Google search setting back to
English, first.

http://groups.google.gr/group/comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical/browse_frm/thread/a21a93768175003c/f677812d24afa7f8?lnk=st&q=%22beretta%22+%22proud+of+it%22+%22colossal+flamewar%22&rnum=1&hl=el#f677812d24afa7f8

[HermanH]

On Jan 19, 3:07 pm, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <GFsYT2KWZCG4lRZnwiBCJXLsX...@4ax.com>,
> fakeaddr...@hotmail.com says...

I'd have to disagree. The only reason H3 got as far as it did was
because third-party users weres able to fix stupidity like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGe0gAKBFAw&list=PLE47DD5BA050504B2&index=72

Just imagine 7 years for a modern naval wargame where the TLAM cannot
be fired from submarines. Sheer idiocy.

[Vincenzo Beretta]

> Details researched and tested by you would be more welcome
> but, lacking those, you can always fall back on the pre-packaged
> feeds by the developers - it already happened once before when

> this non-Greek-speaking pawn was sacrificed as a dupe:

> http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=1789909

> Guess he should have changed his Google search setting back
> to English, first.

I had forgot that one. The dude was so full of righteous fury agains us
crooks that he started to speak "tongues" :^D

[Vincenzo Beretta]

> Much of our game development has been driven by implementing
> things that people request and given some effort they
> could have been in positions to make big design decisions.

Considering how my first "big one" would have been: "leave the DB open for
modding", I can easily see how it would have ended the same way anyway.

> Its a big bummer especially if you consider that the alternative
> doesn't seem to going anywhere but as one big bug collection
> on utube.

There, and to Colombia ^^

[Miguel Ramirez]

This "sock puppet" has just plonked you Herman.

Have a nice day,

Miquel.

[HermanH]

And a good day to you, too!

Let this be a lesson to you (and others) for accepting claims at face
value without first bothering to see if any of it holds water. You
could have saved everyone a lot of time and yourself a lot of
embarrassment. :-D

[Giftzwerg]

In article <917b3a07-b919-408e-8e64-e44d5bca50c3
@k10g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...

> Just look at what got released in 2011 and tell me 95% of them
> wouldn't have been better games if the developer had spend his coding
> time on someone else's design instead of his own.

Sadly, I'd be foolish to contest this point. More's the pity, though.

[Vincenzo Beretta]

> This "sock puppet" has just plonked you Herman.

See? This is why being plonked by "serious people, serious games and serious
sites" is FAR from a badge of shame in the Harpoon scene :o)

[Bostonmyk]

On Jan 20, 1:25 pm, "Vincenzo Beretta"

<vincenzo.bere...@fastwebnet.it> wrote:
> > Much of our game development has been driven by implementing
> > things that people request and given some effort they
> > could have been in positions to make big design decisions.
>
> Considering how my first "big one" would have been: "leave the DB open for
> modding", I can easily see how it would have ended the same way anyway.

In command you can edit units in the scenario editor. Our rationale is
people still wanted edit capability; we didn't want to face the db/
scenario mismatch issues Harpoon had and its just a dumb point of
contention within the game community, What exactly do you find wrong
with those reasons?

> > Its a big bummer especially if you consider that the alternative
> > doesn't seem to going anywhere but as one big bug collection
> > on utube.
>
> There, and to Colombia ^^

I think its great Herman had the opportunity to do that and its a good
thing for AGSI however in my opinion Command will be a better tool.
We are considering a pro variant and will likely partner with any Navy
that has an interest in building a great sim with us. We had a great
experience with the Australian Navy some years ago and will likely
contact some friends there again. Luckily I think the only thing we
have to do to surpass Harpoon ANW at this point is *not crash*. Our
bar is set much higher.

The door is always open if you guys want to help and get the game you
want. If you want to hang your hats on H3.. its all yours...but don't
say we didn't ask.

MM

[Ramble]

Why was Toaw so successful in this regard? Why are there hundreds or
thousands of scenarios without this so-called mismatch problem?
Surely it is a construct to present one issue as "prevent the

community from screwing each other over by stealing each others

work". They wouldn't be selling these scenarios, would they? Each
scenario builder doesn't own the work (I mean, they want others to
play it or expand on it because even they will gain from it), they're
not like the current game makers who seem to see anything other than
total control of their property as lost value?

On the surface "screwing each other over by stealing each others'
work" is a subconscious way of saying "if we don't do it this way, the
community is going to screw us over by stealing the original true
version of our work (let's disregard the monetary value they will give
us for the privilege).

[Ramble]

On Jan 20, 6:09 am, Miguel Ramirez <miquel.rami...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > No, I don't find it kosher on a lot of genres - almost all, actually.
> > However, in classic adventures you solve puzzles and enigmas, and you
> > are rewarded with a new bit of narrative, until you have the wholestory.
> > Same in most FPS, RPGs etc.
>
> > Have you ever wondered why the less "narrative" genre of them all,
> > wargames, produces the best narrative in videogames, i.e. AARs? Because
> > in other games meeting challenge is rewarded by a bit of storytelling,
> > whereas in wargames meeting challenge *actually builds the story*. This
> > is why people follow, let's say, good War in the Pacific AARs like if
> > they are dramas published two-three times a week. Just go on AE forum
> > and look for GreyJoy's one.
>
> Thanks for the heads up. If one day I decide to go back to the mess
> WitP:AE was, I will. Is it better than the ones by Cuttlefish?
>
> That wargames the best narrative in videogames is a *highly* debatable
> topic. And regarding WitP AAR's, the best ever was the one by Cuttlefish.
> I lost interest in WitP a year and a half ago. And I think it was too
> late. You won't hear me moaning around places "Hey, give me back those
> years of my life".
>
> >> In the context of a campaign game, where you have a "game master", I
> >> can well live with the occasional failure.
>
> > Well, I'm the game master of my current D&D campaign and I can assure
> > you of one thing. Should I ever say "Your courage and your flair for
> > battle killed the dragon with minimum losses - pity that, you realize,
> > you are dead anyway..." I will not survive.
>
> Hmmm, really? Who are you playing with? Sixteen year olds? Come up with a
> *good* story and I'll let your dragon disintegrate my character at any
> time (or kill half the Starks). Be sadistic like that without a good
> story and then that will be the last time I play (or I read you) with you.

>
> >> The argument was more complex than saying to anyone "shut up you
> >> moron".
>
> > I saw, I only distilled the significant bit :o)
>
> Or misrepresented the argument.
>

> >> Hmmm, I don't recall the Argentinian Air Force to have a Regiment of
> >> Backfires at hand.
>
> > You haven't watched the video I posted, have you?
>
> What video Vincenzo? I can't find any youtube link in your previous
> messages.
>

> > Now, this may seem nitpicking, but differentiating what a character says
> > from what his writer says it quite important (or Manzoni would be a
> > stupid because Don Abbondio says stupid things). Beside, if you don't do
> > that, you lose the ability to distinguish the real world from fiction -
> > which is, BTW, a nice sigil to that streak of rants ^^
>
> You said it all. I find that like saying that it wasn't Murdoch the one
> speaking when the sock puppet spoke, but the sock puppet itself. To be
> honest, it's not only nit-picking but also "correct" in the sense that
> Romantics just picked up historical characters and used them to their
> leisure to put forward the values or whatever the author wanted.
>
> >> That's what you say. That someone says X doesn't mean that X is true
>
> > I can assure you that some people think that it is :^D

>
> >> course. If such was the case then, coming forward with copies of the
> >> two versions of the database and pointing to a difference in their
> >> checksums, so people could check by themselves, would have proven what
> >> you say.
>

> > Well, no, because *I* could have manipulated one of the two copies.
> > Manipulating DBs to make people look bad works two ways...
>
> Vincenzo, when you will realize you sound like someone who doesn't have a
> clue at all about databases and worse, pretend that nobody knows about
> those?
>

> > However, fair enough. I can only point out the LONG explanation about
> > how OBVIOUSLY DBs are changed (something that no one ever challenged)
> > while the core of the case, the "unannounced" posted just above, is
> > somehow untouched ^^
>
> Sigh. They released new database version, they change the ID's for many
> objects in the database. Were they supposed to announce it in any way? I
> mean, like sending e-mails to people or anything? Seems not
>

> Why couldn't you find someone with some programming knowledge to write
> for you guys your own tool? Wasn't anybody like that in your circle of
> Harpooners? Sincerely, that's very unlikely.
>
> It's bad to keep "secret" such tools? Yes, it is. Because if they prove
> to be really useful, some people who really want it will go very far in
> order to get it. That I've already granted you: keeping tools that
> further the "public" good away from the public isn't a good thing in my
> book.
>

> >> 1) ok, they just released 6.11. Time to migrate my scenarios. 2) I use
> >> the beta script I got from my buddy.
>
> > Ah, yup, the legendary tool. Have you ever seen it, BTW?
>
> Not "legendary", it's something that anybody who has worked as a Database
> Manager has written at least once. So I don't need to see it, because I
> just wrote a similar tool *two days ago* in a different context for a
> different kind of database, just for the very same reasons Ragnar wrote
> his tool. If I can do it in my spare time or between breaks at work, why
> should I presume nobody else can?
>
> It doesn't precisely sound to me as black magic at all. To others,
> perhaps it sounds like writing new pages in the Necronomicon. But
> actually it's a quite worldly affair.
>

> >> 3) For some reason database object ID's are messed. 4) Oh Sh*t!
>
> > Either that or *this*: "How to crash a database in six steps"
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wY_zJGXx-0Q
>
> > But, please, before making a call watch the video this time :o)
>
> Now you provide the link. But let me remind you that videos aren't
> arguments, illustrate arguments. And your "argument" is that changing
> fields that are primary key of a DB register is bad news for applications
> trying to process documents trying to ? That's *so* enlightening
> Vincenzo... I already understood the problem you were having, by the way.
>

> Are you saying this to me or it's a gesture to the "gallery"?
>

> And I wonder what was kind of agreement was between DB2000 author and
> maintainer and "unaffiliated" scenario designers, as this guy pointed out
> very clearly 7!!! years ago
>
> http://forums.gamesquad.com/showthread.php?23949-Official-request-to-
> Don&p=294207&viewfull=1#post294207
>
> [...]
> Well let me ask you this. Why wasn't Ragnar contacted ahead of time and
> why was it posted directly to a third party user lists. Was it looking
> for a resolution or was it looking for a very public argument? Why was it
> posted twice to your list and once pinned? (Ahead of AGSI support links I
> might add). Just looks like a problem was being looked for rather than
> asked about.
>
> Now in terms of practice, Rag lays out his policies here.
>
> http://www.harpoonhq.com/harpoon3/instructions.html
>
> He clearly says that he's only responsible for scenarios on the HHQ and
> not other websites. The only guarantee is that he'll maintain the HHQ's.
> So up to other other sites to guarantee the quality on their own. That
> means double checking and doing the work it takes to maintain Harpoon
> scenarios.

> ...
>
> read more »

Hi Miguel,

Welcome to the real newsgroup :)

Welcome to the "Oh yeah! Well my dog is bigger than your dog, because
his tail is longer" world :)

You did well,...for a while.

p.s. Vincenzo comes across as being very credible. It will take some
special writers to make him look bad (imo)

...and I don't give a shit about who is the new boy and who has been
around forever.

[Mike Kreuzer]

On 20/01/2012 10:12 PM, Giftzwerg wrote:
> In article<7ffccf94-b8c1-4d8b-b8de-0a2798b1bf48
> @g41g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...
>
>>> Interesting and happy news :) Keep us posted on this, please. And if you
>>> need help with the programming or anything technical, let me tell you
>>> have one here who can help and would be delighted to do so just for the
>>> sake of a unfortunately somewhat sleepy hobby.
>>
>> Step 1 : get it working as a game
>> Step 2 : get it out there as a free print&play or POD publication
>> Step 3 : convert it to digital format
>>
>> Believe it or not, but Step 1 is the most difficult part :)
>
> The three games I most play would not exist if the designers had
> followed this appallingly bad advice.
>

And the corollary of that: most of last year's crop of games would
have happily sailed through as boardgames that were just as execrable
as they were in their computer game incarnation.

If only someone had just added cards to them though, to make them
"modern", problem solved right? Pffftt.

Regards,
Mike Kreuzer
www.mikekreuzer.com

[sunb...@gmail.com]

> Why was Toaw so successful in this regard? Why are there hundreds or
> thousands of scenarios without this so-called mismatch problem?
> Surely it is a construct to present one issue as "prevent the
> community from screwing each other over by stealing each others
> work". They wouldn't be selling these scenarios, would they? Each
> scenario builder doesn't own the work (I mean, they want others to
> play it or expand on it because even they will gain from it), they're
> not like the current game makers who seem to see anything other than
> total control of their property as lost value?
>
> On the surface "screwing each other over by stealing each others'
> work" is a subconscious way of saying "if we don't do it this way, the
> community is going to screw us over by stealing the original true
> version of our work (let's disregard the monetary value they will give
> us for the privilege).

Hi Ramble,

TOAW is a rather poor example for comparison in this regard since it had a single underlying database that was very rarely modified (and then only between successive releases of the game itself). As a result it was fairly easy to synchronize scenarios with any database changes - and even so, IIRC, there were scenarios with the warning notice "Compatible only with FPK and onwards", for example. Harpoon and now Command rely on databases that are very frequently updated to include both new historical research as well as everything new happening in the defence & aerospace sectors.

If you examine the history of databases in the H2/3 community you will easily notice 2 major problems:

1) The multitude of third-party databases, combined with the absence of an easy way to switch between them depending on the scenario selected to play, resulted in a plethora of mismatch problems (Giftzwerg can testify to that). This problem got so bad that users had to rely on external "DB switcher" apps, which eased but did not eliminate the problem.

2) The absence of any technical obstacles to mass-copying data from one DB to the other meant that there was nothing to prevent a malicious person from stealing another DB author's hard work and presenting it as his own (for an example of this, see here: http://www.warfaresims.com/?p=1262). This may not sound significant to outside observers, but to someone who has invested untold man-hours of work and very real money in such an endeavor, it constitutes an absolute affront. The DB and scenario designers who boosted H3 to the top of its genre during 1999-2005 saw their work being stolen and exploited by others - and the community not caring. Realizing the vulnerability of practically anything worthwhile they had or intented to produce, they left in droves (as indeed we warned: http://www.warfaresims.com/?p=1265). The community was left to become the ghost-town it currently is.

Command's design decisions address both these problems. There are no scen-DB mismatches, and there is no possibility of DB plagiarism. This provides the best playing experience to end-users, and provides content-creators with the peace of mind they need to focus on creating great DBs and scenarios instead of fighting among themselves.

Now of course you will see some people (most of them involved in the Harpoon fracas - perhaps a coincidence) trying hard to turn this into a "Command is mod-hostile!" story. Nothing is further from the truth. In fact we have incorporated into the scenario editor many features that previously required DB-editing. A simple example: To add a new weapon to an aircraft or ship in Harpoon, you have to edit the database. In Command you can do this in ScenEdit without ever touching the DB. With this and other similar features, the need for DB tinkering (which is the main concern of those legitimately concerned about the DB lockdown) is severely reduced. Community feedback has also suggested per-scenario DB-overrides of DB fields and we looking into that as well.

To re-emphasize what I stated before: Whatever can be done to accomodate the needs of content creators without exposing the DBs to the abuse observed in Harpoon, we will try hard to do it.

Do we want people creating "stuff" for Command? Absolutely. The video at the start of this thread demonstrates as much, and there is more to come. Do we want the Harpoon controversy to play out again? No, and we have taken drastic steps to prevent it. Is there a "throwing the baby with the bathwater" risk inherent in these decisions? Yes, there is.

I think it is fitting to repeat what I previously said on our forums when this issue was raised (http://www.warfaresims.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=10706):

[...]

Our goal from Day-1 of this endeavor has been to protect Command and its community from the mistakes of the past. That means making tough, sometimes unpleasant decisions - and accepting that some people will be driven away by them, and that the parasites who wrecked the Harpoon community will spin them in the worst possible way. If the end result of these decisions is, as we hope, that this community flourishes and remains healthy throughout Command's lifetime, it is a price that we are willing to pay.

As Mike already said, our plans in this aspect (and others for that matter) are not set in stone. One of the main reasons we are discussing various aspects of the game in these forums is precisely in order to solicit feedback that will enable us to finetune the game to our intended audience. Our overall design is flexible enough to accommodate changes in DB & scenario protection not only literally at the last minute before release but also between successive releases (our design in general is supremely flexible; we were able to go through three different map-UI engines with virtually no code changes anywhere else). So if our initial assumptions about the state of things are proven wrong, we can adjust.

Nothing would please us more than to see a community actively responding to incidents of plagiarism and neutralizing the perpetrators. At that point we would really have no reason to protect the works of content creators by any technical means - because by then (to misquote Herodotus) "the best shields would be in the hearts & minds of men".

Until that time comes, and with past experiences in mind, erring on the side of caution is a sensible position.

[...]

I do realize that we may or may not agree on this, and we respect everyone's disagreement with our course of action, as long as their judgement is based on facts and not spoon-fed spin.

Thanks!

Dimitris
WarfareSims.com

[Miguel Ramirez]

Vincenzo, I must say that I enjoyed your work on the Nathan Never series
when I was a teenager (one of my uncles was a dedicated comic book
collector). When I joined this group I checked - your surname rang a
couple bells (firearms and comics) - and I was delighted to have the
opportunity with someone who is actually involved in the media &
entertainment industry. I enjoy discussing stuff with people with
backgrounds different from mine, it usually gives me the opportunity of
getting a different perspective on different topics.

However, as we say in Spain "dime con quién vas y te diré quién
eres" (translated: "Tell me who you walk with and I will tell you who you
are"). I'm disappointed, but this can indeed happen.

I'll use another Spanish saying - one that Giftzwerg will surely
appreciate - to tell you that "tengo los huevos pelados de vérmelas con
trolls de mierda" (translated: "My balls are bald of dealing with shitty
trolls").

Seems we won't be able to discuss about certain facts. Ok, I'll try to
discuss with you other facts on this newsgroup. Everybody is granted an
opinion in the Internet. And that's good, in my opinion.

But there's still a difference between having actual knowledge of
something and waving around a diploma on Cargo Cult Science by the
University of New Guinea.

Cheers,

Miquel.

[Miguel Ramirez]

>
> Hi Miguel,
>
> Welcome to the real newsgroup :)
>
> Welcome to the "Oh yeah! Well my dog is bigger than your dog, because
> his tail is longer" world :)
>

Yes, and I don't like that, to be honest. I got embroiled in a whirlwind
of tangential arguments.

> You did well,...for a while.
>

What do you mean?

> p.s. Vincenzo comes across as being very credible. It will take some
> special writers to make him look bad (imo)
>
> ...and I don't give a shit about who is the new boy and who has been
> around forever.

I can't do other than to shrug, Ramble. But, to be very honest, you can
check Vincenzo's background and you can check mine as well. He waves e-
peen, and I don't, because e-peen doesn't exist and I haven't wielded
imaginary swords since I was 8 years old.

I didn't try to make Vincenzo "look bad", unless contesting the claims
and statements of someone amounts to "making him look bad".

Cheers,

Miquel.

[Ramble]

Hi Miquel,

I'm on the look-out for industry "plants" because I personally don't
need them.

That does not mean that anyone who disagrees with my viewpoint is an
industry plant. It does mean that when people use arguments that I
begin to suspect would be used by an "industry plant", I start to look
at the methods and strategy of the overall discussion.

"It's obvious you didn't bother to compare checksums, either. I have
the sabotaged zip files in question if you would like to do so at this
time. Or, you can ask for a copy from your colleagues. Just make
sure you get all four of them. I'll even give you a hint: their
release dates were 06/02/2005, 11/02/2005, 10/03/2005, and
12/03/2005. We can simultaneously reveal the checksums publicly on
this forum."

For me, it is not a question of who has the most encyclopaedic
knowledge but rather what the aim of the discussion appears to be, by
each participant.

In that discussion, my current impression is that Vincenzo is earnest,
logical and willing to argue all points of view. I didn't think, eg,
that whether a particular type of bomber participated in a particular
war was of any importance in promoting the discussion and pointed me
back to your motives in the discussion.

These are just impressions. The current activities in the US
regarding piracy etc seem to be echoed in different areas of the
computer games industry, a determination to control the customers (and
also to increase earnings, of course).

That famous viewpoint that the customer "deserves" the best is what
I"m talking about, as long as the supplier is in control, of course).

If you were trying to make Vincenzo "look bad", I decided that you
would have to try harder, but not like that, as you've said. I though
it would be better to reply to each of his points and discuss it in a
similar vein. Your earlier posts were interesting and it seemed
unusual that you would attack-dog Vincenzo, unless maybe you were
speaking from a particular point of view (though you just may not
be). Anyway, cheers

[Ramble]

Hi Dimitris,

This all looks very reasonable. I'm not out to take sides regarding
individuals (only how I view their arguments) and I don't claim
expertise in this game. I wonder if harpoon's strength led to its
downfall, a fanatacism by both supporters and detracters (maybe of
those supporters). You should hope for such an outcome, in a way, ie,
a runaway success, at least at first. It does show, though, that
customer freedom to tinker with your future game is a strategic part
of your game. Get it wrong, and you may not have many problems at
all.

Thanks for your response, it was very interesting.

I hope your game works out well and avoids the problems of Harpoon

[Miguel Ramirez]

>
> I'm on the look-out for industry "plants" because I personally don't
> need them.
>

Sorry, Ramble, but I didn't get that. What do you mean with "industry
plants"?

> That does not mean that anyone who disagrees with my viewpoint is an
> industry plant. It does mean that when people use arguments that I
> begin to suspect would be used by an "industry plant", I start to look
> at the methods and strategy of the overall discussion.
>
> "It's obvious you didn't bother to compare checksums, either. I have
> the sabotaged zip files in question if you would like to do so at this
> time. Or, you can ask for a copy from your colleagues. Just make sure
> you get all four of them. I'll even give you a hint: their release
> dates were 06/02/2005, 11/02/2005, 10/03/2005, and 12/03/2005. We can
> simultaneously reveal the checksums publicly on this forum."
>
> For me, it is not a question of who has the most encyclopaedic knowledge
> but rather what the aim of the discussion appears to be, by each
> participant.
>

First, I don't have any "colleagues" as Vincenzo says. What I didn't
understand before - because as I was discussing I was learning a few
things, is that yes, the Database files were being modified as his author
saw fit.

I didn't acknowledge that point because... well, I guess I got a bit lost
as the discussion heated and I was losing my grip with English. And I
didn't agree with seeing that as having the malignant intention of
"sinking" people who had chosen not to follow the guidelines the db
author had set in order to give support to scenario designers.

> In that discussion, my current impression is that Vincenzo is earnest,
> logical and willing to argue all points of view. I didn't think, eg,
> that whether a particular type of bomber participated in a particular
> war was of any importance in promoting the discussion and pointed me
> back to your motives in the discussion.
>

And what were my motives? Vincenzo was criticizing an scenario author
because he was trying to get something like a dynamic campaign on a
system which didn't support it, because one of the scenarios - when taken
out of the campaign context - resulted a meaningless and frustrating
affair.

Since I contested his criticism, he went further along that windy road
trying to discredit "in general" the man. And by extension, what I find
to be a fine attempt at portraying contemporary naval warfare.

When he started the issue of portraying the author as a some sort of
underhanded crook I knew I was getting into dangerous territory. That of
a very very very old feud which I see as the main cause for the death of
the Harpoon community.

But sincerely, from what I had gathered in the past and what I've learnt
now, I wasn't going to ignore that attempt to slander someone I admire
but I have never met (personally or over the Internet).

He made good points about deus ex machina being bad for stories when used
too often. He didn't really prove that *in the case at hand* it was used
*too* often, nor that it was unjustified.

He was trying to cast doubts about the - pretty impressive in my opinion
- thing the Command guys are doing, crudely misrepresenting something
which is - in my opinion - perfectly legit thing to do *when* justified.

> These are just impressions. The current activities in the US regarding
> piracy etc seem to be echoed in different areas of the computer games
> industry, a determination to control the customers (and also to increase
> earnings, of course).
>
> That famous viewpoint that the customer "deserves" the best is what I"m
> talking about, as long as the supplier is in control, of course).
>

Sorry, Ramble, but I don't get your point here. It seems to me that
you're confusing some legitimate concern on well documented past exploits
in the Harpoon community with the RIAA and the general "War On Piracy"
FUD that has been going on for so long. Why? Because of the use of
cryptography.

The database encryption thing is something which I don't like, but I
understand their reasons for doing so. Everyone is free to decide whether
or not that deprives interest of their game *a priori*.

In principle I also don't like much scenario encryption but I'll let you
note two things. One, you can always contact the scenario designer (the
author) and ask him for the key. Two, an scenario designer who doesn't
care, can publish the key to decrypt the scenario along with the scenario.

So what's actually the problem? These aren't really the kind of DMCA
sponsored shackles everyone has suffered to some extent. Because the keys
of the shackles can be obtained. If you're nice and you can convince the
holder you are going to do a "fair use" of his works.

As always, it's about knowing the intentions of who does the deed. And
also if it's a passive mechanism, or an active mechanism, such as those
DMCA shackles I mention. Cryptography is a powerful weapon, which needs
to be handled with care as all weapons do.

Regarding the "money greed" some people see here. I'd like them to
outline clearly and concretely what's the business plan like, because I
don't really see it as something "outrageous" or "not ever done before"
or "beyond the pale".

> If you were trying to make Vincenzo "look bad", I decided that you would
> have to try harder, but not like that, as you've said. I though it
> would be better to reply to each of his points and discuss it in a
> similar vein. Your earlier posts were interesting and it seemed
> unusual that you would attack-dog Vincenzo, unless maybe you were
> speaking from a particular point of view (though you just may not be).
> Anyway, cheers

The problem was that he pointed to an issue related to a technology I'm
fairly familiar with. And in the light of what I know about the actual
thing behind all those screens and buttons that look so nice on a video,
Vincenzo story didn't hold any water at all. I don't know if I came out
too aggressive or not, some nuances of written English maybe lost on me.
In Spanish it would have sounded a bit stern, but not too overly
aggressive.

Making videos to show things to people is fair and a good thing. Their
tutorial videos are indeed an invaluable resource and their makers should
be praised for it (actually I'm doing).

However, I prefer to read manuals and get my hands on the stuff directly,
to make up my own ideas.

Cheers,

Miquel.

[Vincenzo Beretta]

> Vincenzo, I must say that I enjoyed your work on the Nathan Never
> series when I was a teenager

I wrote ONE story for Nathan Never (and a cross-over with Martin Mystere),
but I'm glad that you enjoyed it :)

> "My balls are bald of dealing with shitty trolls".

There are two steps to avoid that:

1) Identify the trolls (correctly, of course)
2) Stop dealing with them

> Seems we won't be able to discuss about certain facts.

We just did, and did it just fine IMHO. If there are "facts" you feel we
haven't discussed, feel free to enumerate them.

> But there's still a difference between having actual knowledge
> of something and waving around a diploma on Cargo Cult
> Science by the University of New Guinea.

As you may have desumed by this thread, this is something everyone here
fully agrees with :)

[Miguel Ramirez]

> I'm on the look-out for industry "plants" because I personally don't
> need them.
>

Now I got this.

Look, I see a stark difference between The Pirate Bay and Megaupload.
I'll try to not fall into any kind of over-simplification. This is also
completely off-topic, but might show to you that I'm not here "planted"
by anyone. It's also my personal opinion, based on my own ethics and
morals.

The Pirate Bay is a bittorrent tracker, so people had an easier time
finding other people who wanted to share their *private copies* of movies
and records. Sharing these copies with other people, or having a website
to publish these, is *legal* in Spain and has stood several attempts at
court by "authors' rights" societies to contested its lawfulness. And
perfectly fair: I used to borrow and lend cassettes, videotapes and books
with my friends, or people I didn't know much but trusted, and I can't
see why that's no longer "reasonable".

However, there you could also find cracked applications and videogames.
This isn't legal in Spain and many other countries, and opened a door for
them to be prosecuted. Too bad, I thought, and I donated to help for
their legal defense. On the other hand, I don't approve much of hacking
applications made by other people without their permission (such as the
one granted by the many free software licenses).

Some people think the two things are one but the same thing. But I
disagree. In order to do a copy of a record or a movie you don't need to
tamper with its content in any way. You don't change dialogues, nor
actors' faces or anything. With a videogame or an application you have to
modify the code of the application. That's usually disallowed in
commercial software applications. This is a subtle, but in my opinion,
crucial difference.

This legal copy sharing has one clear limit: that of not generating
revenue other than that strictly necessary to sustain those sites. That
is, you can't become a distributor (like a cinema theater) and charge
people for accessing to that content. That's the privilege of those
holding the distribution rights.

The Pirate Bay never attempted to set up a business so you got privileged
access either. Nor, as far as I know, the people running it made out a
living of it. And neither *physically* held any legit private copies.

Now, let's take a look at Megaupload. Not the crap in the media about
"Conspiracy" or whatever, but the actual business. Because it was a
*business* seeking profit, not a non-profit organization.

Some guys who want to make some money on a dotcom venture, based on the
notion of storing documents and private files on the Cloud. Fair enough.
Also was fair enough that users used the service to store *their* legal
copies on the system - as long as their terms of service allowed it,
something that many such mass storage services do not.

The problem came when they saw that many people was sharing links to
their private copies and that a very significant part of their revenue
came from users paying for the no-wait, privileged Premium access. Here
they had a decision. Either they locked down the service and a made clear
commitment to separate their for-profit business from the legal copy
sharing, or enjoy how their bank accounts increased with each new premium
user.

Seems to me that they chose the latter, and really, I can't say I'm sorry
to see them jailed. By making the wrong decisions their business became
*de facto* an unlawful media distribution outlet. They will surely claim
that they had no knowledge of this, a valid and sensible defense
strategy. I'm most than sure than the "conspiracy" charges will go
nowhere. Although I find hard not to think that they had designed their
business plan contemplating this from the very beginning (they look to me
as very knowledgeable about the Internet technologies and their
ramifications). But very probably they'll have to pay fines and
compensations after having been exposed to the public light as the US
legal system likes to do to "make an example" and "send a comforting
message to the public". Not very different from the old tradition of
putting people on the pillory for public ridicule and derision.

Honestly, megaupload, rapidshare etc. look to me a "quick & dirty" dotcom
ventures with zero innovation aimed at making buckets of money very
quickly. I can't hardly feel myself that they need any help from me to
contribute to paying for lawyers nor my money.

Cheers,

Miquel.

[Miguel Ramirez]

>> Vincenzo, I must say that I enjoyed your work on the Nathan Never
>> series when I was a teenager
>
> I wrote ONE story for Nathan Never (and a cross-over with Martin
> Mystere), but I'm glad that you enjoyed it :)
>

Just one? I assumed you were writing there more regularly.

>> "My balls are bald of dealing with shitty trolls".
>
> There are two steps to avoid that:
>
> 1) Identify the trolls (correctly, of course) 2) Stop dealing with them
>

Ditto.

>> Seems we won't be able to discuss about certain facts.
>
> We just did, and did it just fine IMHO. If there are "facts" you feel we
> haven't discussed, feel free to enumerate them.
>

Why didn't you write to Ragnar telling him about your problems with the
database and requesting for help? Or you did?

>> But there's still a difference between having actual knowledge of
>> something and waving around a diploma on Cargo Cult Science by the
>> University of New Guinea.
>
> As you may have desumed by this thread, this is something everyone here
> fully agrees with :)

I'm really glad about that, sincerely.

Cheers,

Miquel.

[Vincenzo Beretta]

> The door is always open if you guys want to help and get the
> game you want. If you want to hang your hats on H3.. its all
> yours...but don't say we didn't ask.

Thank you, but I don't see a single reason to help people who continue to
have among their main activities the diffusion of lies and slander about me.

(Nor, I might add, do I understand why such people would like to have me
onboard - if were they honest believers of what they write...)

[HermanH]

TOAW is an excellent example of success. The hundreds of scenarios
attest to this fact. However, imagine if anyone had tried to sabotage
a TOAW database the way it was done with Harpoon. (A warning about
unannounced changes in DB2000
http://forums.gamesquad.com/showthread.php?23914-A-warning-about-unannounced-changes-in-DB2000&daysprune=-1)

Had the 19th Century TOAW DB (http://www.the-strategist.net/RD/
scenarii/hosted/19thcentury/) been manipulated in the same way, the
TOAW community would have formed a lynch mob. In fact, the Harpoon
community did exactly that. The moment the sabotage was revealed, it
was like a light switch had been turned off. Overnight, virtually
*everyone* just stopped using the Y2kDB. No AARs and, for all intents
and purposes, no new scenarios. The community had spoken. This type
of behaviour would not be tolerated.

(BTW, It was deeply satisfying to see a community actively responding
to acts of sabotage and neutralizing the perpetrators. To paraphrase
Herodotus, "the best shields were in the hearts & minds of men").

However, this made the release of a new database “de facto” mandatory
in order to circumvent this sabotage and make it impossible to ever
happen, again. http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?autocom=downloads&showfile=21
In turn, this database gave birth to the PlayersDB which the community
adopted it as the mainstay and never looked back. Now, there are
hundreds of scenarios and their designers never have to worry about
subjecting their work to sabotage.

[Bostonmyk]

On Jan 21, 9:28 am, "Vincenzo Beretta"

What slander?

MM

[Bostonmyk]

> However, this made the release of a new database “de facto” mandatory
> in order to circumvent this sabotage and make it impossible to ever
> happen, again.  http://harpgamer.com/harpforum/index.php?autocom=downloads&showfile=21
> In turn, this database gave birth to the PlayersDB which the community
> adopted it as the mainstay and never looked back.  Now, there are
> hundreds of scenarios and their designers never have to worry about
> subjecting their work to sabotage.

...and sadly only about 6 "active" H3 players still around actually
playing Harpoon and I'm probably being generous in that count. Good
job Herman.

If you're really doing things that the bulk of Harpooners want how
come you have never won the yearly Pooner award? Its a popularity
contest isn't it?

Let me guess..a vast conspiracy consisting of AGSI, Matrix games etc.
etc. etc.

MM

[Vincenzo Beretta]

> TOAW is an excellent example of success.

And of multiple databases/exes, too. There is a whole thread on Matrix's
forum themselves:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1405297&mpage=1&key=&#1405297

Anyway, there are many ways to circumvent the "multiple databases"
complexity. One is to create a launcher that allows dynamic switch of the
DB. This could be paired with different folders for each DB and the related
scenarios - which is what already happens with scores of other games: it is
nothing new.

It is also worth mentioning how other modding success stories often present
mods that are uncompatible with each other. Skyrim, for example, offers at
least two "FPS boost"" third-party mods that cannot be installed together.
People read comments, make their choice and move on.

The last, but important, factor, marketing-wise, is the "illusion of
choice". Giving to a potential customer a lot of possibilities to choose
from makes him happy even if his mind is already fixed. A shop that offers
only Skyrim makes people think "they want to force me to buy Skyrim". A shop
that stocks 15 RPGs makes people think "Wow! A lot of choices here!" - and
then they will buy Skyrim anyway. But the second shop will give to customers
the idea of variety and freedom - beside being appealing to the stray dude
who wants to buy a dog like Gothic IV, too, and will be favoured.

The same works with the items inside a database (a DB that offers Aztec
armed rowboats along with the Kirov will offer an increased "illusion of
choice" even if people will play with the Kirov anyway) and, in a wider
sense, with the general offer of mods for a given game.

[There: I fell in the trap of giving them my personal advice even if I woved
not to ^^]

> Now, there are hundreds of scenarios and their designers never have to
> worry about subjecting their work to sabotage.

Interestingly enough, some of the people who are striving to keep Harpoon
afloat are actively slandered by... uhm... those developing a rival game
(who then lend an hand to us to "come onboard if we want...)

No, really, there is very little of "professional" going on there. Take this
as another two-bits of (usually irking) advice by me, freely given.

[Vincenzo Beretta]

>> We just did, and did it just fine IMHO. If there are "facts" you
>> feel we haven't discussed, feel free to enumerate them.
>

> Why didn't you write to Ragnar telling him about your problems
> with the database and requesting for help? Or you did?

(Sigh) You aren't *really* reading this thread, are you?

"Why would Ragnar need to be warned about his own unannounced changes?
The only ones who need such a dire warning would be his own users and
victims."

BTW, have you tried that "checksum comparison" thinghie? Have you asked for
the tampered DB files? How did it ended?

[Bostonmyk]

On Jan 21, 10:50 am, "Vincenzo Beretta"

<vincenzo.bere...@fastwebnet.it> wrote:
> > TOAW is an excellent example of success.
>
> And of multiple databases/exes, too. There is a whole thread on Matrix's
> forum themselves:
>

> http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1405297&mpage=1&key=�

Vinnie you're all over the place.

In command you can edit units in the scenario editor. Our rationale is
people still wanted edit capability; we didn't want to face the db/
scenario mismatch issues Harpoon had and its just a dumb point of
contention within the game community, What exactly do you find wrong

with those reasons specfically?

What slander?

Again I don't view Command as a Harpoon rival. All we have to do not
surpass is not crash but our bar is much higher.

MM

[Miguel Ramirez]

> "Why would Ragnar need to be warned about his own unannounced changes?
> The only ones who need such a dire warning would be his own users and
> victims."
>

And where I can find written that Ragnar had the compromise to do so?
Where was the "End User Agreement"? Had he done so in the past? If he
did, why did he stop doing that? You didn't answer to any of this.

> BTW, have you tried that "checksum comparison" thinghie? Have you asked
> for the tampered DB files? How did it ended?

As I've already pointed out to Ramble it became clear to me - thanks to
the discussion we were having - that the files had been changed. The
Checksum thingie thing was more an advice about what *you* could have
done *7 years ago* to convince out people without having to check the
database contents. If I didn't get the point out clearly, well, my
apologies. I strive every day to improve my clarity and precision when
writing in English.

Cheers,

Miquel.

[Giftzwerg]

In article <jfemsb$8r7$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,
vincenzo...@fastwebnet.it says...

> Anyway, there are many ways to circumvent the "multiple databases"
> complexity. One is to create a launcher that allows dynamic switch of the
> DB. This could be paired with different folders for each DB and the related
> scenarios - which is what already happens with scores of other games: it is
> nothing new.

... and it works like day-old crap in HARPOON3.

> Interestingly enough, some of the people who are striving to keep Harpoon
> afloat are actively slandered by... uhm... those developing a rival game
> (who then lend an hand to us to "come onboard if we want...)
>
> No, really, there is very little of "professional" going on there. Take this
> as another two-bits of (usually irking) advice by me, freely given.

Why, in heaven's name, would anyone want to "keep HARPOON afloat." This
is like saying we're striving to keep Apple's Newton viable.

Sorry, guys, but Bostonmyk is hardly the poster-boy for HARPOON-slaying;
over lo these many years, he's been the primary defender of that product
in this group. That he and others are now developing a rival game is
absolute music to my ears.

And I'm having trouble understanding what the hubbub is about.
Bostonmyk has patiently explained that the game will be extendable
through a built-in scenario editor, and that the warring-database issue
that was the bane of HARPOON will be a thing of the past.

This is The Wrong Thing ... because ...?

[Giftzwerg]

In article <jfeo21$blm$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,
vincenzo...@fastwebnet.it says...

I'm ready to nominate this "dumbest friggin' thread since that d1n0saur
guy warped in."

[Vincenzo Beretta]

> Why, in heaven's name, would anyone want to "keep HARPOON afloat."

It is a form of extreme sport. Some people just need the thrill, like those
guys who climb Mount Everest bare-handed ^^

> and that the warring-database issue that was the bane of
> HARPOON will be a thing of the past.

> This is The Wrong Thing ... because ...?

Because the "warring-database issue" was not the bane of Harpoon, but of the
community. All the games out there with moddable databases/underlying data
already have the seeds of success stories: TOAW, War in the Pacific, Armored
Brigade, Skyrim... you name them.

So, acting like if *the approach* is wrong, as opposed to "the childish
reaction of a given community to the approach is wrong", means acting on
faulty data: mistaking a childish reaction for the problem itself.

Imagine substituting the very sane multy-party approach in a democracy with
a single party - because people whine about how all this "Republicans vs.
Democrats vs. Independents" warring is unhealthy - and you will have a good
picture of the underlying idea: "We tell you how things are, so everybody
*is* happy and there will not be any dissent". I guess there is a reason why
the working title was RED Pill ^^

[HermanH]

On Jan 21, 11:05 am, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <jfemsb$8r...@speranza.aioe.org>,
> vincenzo.bere...@fastwebnet.it says...

Because it isn't just about adding units or loading certain weapons to
a particular scenario. It's about how those weapons and platforms
actually work and the ability to modify or adjust them according to
your own beliefs over their capabilities. This could mean reducing
the range or accuracy of any particular system. It's about being able
to make changes and not have those changes screwed over in the future
by someone else on a whim. This is the hallmark of every successful
game franchise. Examples include WitP and TOAW. Each allows separate
and customized databases to exist to satisfy certain users' approach
to the game.

And players still have the opportunity to use the official data if
they choose to do so: multiple DBs don't bar them from doing this in
the slightest.

Of course, this is all pure speculation since this game hasn't even
been released yet.

[Vincenzo Beretta]

> I'm ready to nominate this "dumbest friggin' thread since that
> d1n0saur guy warped in."

Nah. It is just a way like another to spend time while I install the
"Calientes Female Body Mod Big Bottom Edition -CBBE- by Caliente" for
Skyrim. I only hope I will not find "unannounced penis additions" in the
latest version. ^^

[Bostonmyk]

Judging from what I saw several years ago your belief system involved
adding +5 or -5 (or similar increments) to any value you saw in any
database you copied. I don't know if they were correct or not but they
were consistent. We could provide that at the scenario level if you'd
like which actually saves you a step as you would no longer have to
rebuild the scenario after the database mod? . We're already working
on a few pro inputs where they can change environmental factors that
impact detection calculations etc.

> And players still have the opportunity to use the official data if
> they choose to do so: multiple DBs don't bar them from doing this in
> the slightest.
>
> Of course, this is all pure speculation since this game hasn't even
> been released yet.

Yeah and editing at the scenario level provides exactly the same.

The nice thing about still being in development is we can make any
changes that people seem to want and makes sense. So if we're making a
bad decision we can just change it which t think its a better position
to be in than what what you've got with Harpoon. As you've mentioned
they don't seem to like or listen you.

MM

[Giftzwerg]

In article <jfevtq$uiv$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,
vincenzo...@fastwebnet.it says...

> > Why, in heaven's name, would anyone want to "keep HARPOON afloat."
>
> It is a form of extreme sport. Some people just need the thrill, like those
> guys who climb Mount Everest bare-handed ^^

<shrug>

I gave up on that shitware ages ago. HARPOON CE being the exception;
that I still play.

> > and that the warring-database issue that was the bane of
> > HARPOON will be a thing of the past.
>
> > This is The Wrong Thing ... because ...?
>
> Because the "warring-database issue" was not the bane of Harpoon, but of the
> community. All the games out there with moddable databases/underlying data
> already have the seeds of success stories: TOAW, War in the Pacific, Armored
> Brigade, Skyrim... you name them.

I don't purchase games to be part of some "community," I buy them
because I expect to take them out of the box and work as expected.
Maybe I'm an outlier, but I can count on the fingers of one hand the
games I've modded - and it's always something I can live without.

FALLOUT3, for example, I did download a mod that kept weapons from
deteriorating for the simple reason that I own a Colt M1911 that just
had its 100th birthday, and it shoots as good as it did when it came
from the armory in 1912. But I didn't *need* that mod.

> So, acting like if *the approach* is wrong, as opposed to "the childish
> reaction of a given community to the approach is wrong", means acting on
> faulty data: mistaking a childish reaction for the problem itself.

I guess I'm just not seeing the "problem" as it pertains to COMMAND;
Bostonmyk has already explained that the scenario editor is up to the
task of altering the database information for a particular scenario.
Why do we need alternative databases? Why would we want them?

And I find it utterly surreal that there's a flame-war about "modding"
and "databases" ... *before we even have the game in our hands*!

> Imagine substituting the very sane multy-party approach in a democracy with
> a single party - because people whine about how all this "Republicans vs.
> Democrats vs. Independents" warring is unhealthy - and you will have a good
> picture of the underlying idea: "We tell you how things are, so everybody
> *is* happy and there will not be any dissent". I guess there is a reason why
> the working title was RED Pill ^^

Hmmm. Can you possibly be arguing that product design should be a
democracy? That's ridiculous. In a democracy, risk is shared by all
the citizens in equal part. What are you risking by volunteering your
opinion about how COMMAND should be designed?

I'm not saying companies shouldn't listen to their customers, but in
this case, you've voiced your opinion, the designers have heard you, and
they've rejected your advice. Your only remaining role in the design
process is to decide whether or not you'll purchase the product.

And I would point out that a sure-fire formula for disaster in most
product design scenarios is "design by committee." Maybe I want my
nation ruled by The Wisdom Of Crowds, but I'd prefer products be
designed by the designers, who, after all, are risking everything on the
rightness of their decisions.

[Giftzwerg]

In article <b8f9eaaa-6c15-446c-8ef2-
54a64a...@m4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, herm...@gmail.com says...

> Because it isn't just about adding units or loading certain weapons to
> a particular scenario. It's about how those weapons and platforms
> actually work and the ability to modify or adjust them according to
> your own beliefs over their capabilities. This could mean reducing
> the range or accuracy of any particular system. It's about being able
> to make changes and not have those changes screwed over in the future
> by someone else on a whim. This is the hallmark of every successful
> game franchise. Examples include WitP and TOAW. Each allows separate
> and customized databases to exist to satisfy certain users' approach
> to the game.

I could name any number of successful games that either preclude
modification ... or where the out-of-box experience is good enough that
no one bothers to modify them.

[Vincenzo Beretta]

> I don't purchase games to be part of some "community," I buy
> them because I expect to take them out of the box and work
> as expected.

These are two different things. Most people, and for sure all those who buy
games for console, expect for a game to be good and work out of the box.
However, a look at PC gaming and exp. the wargame subgenre shows that free
modding is an *immense* value multiplyer.

No one is forced to be part of a community, but you can if you want to - and
many of the things put out by the community usually end up surpassing in
value the original offer. And this doesn't always happen because the
original developers were lazy, but because a guy devoted his itme at
improving "cooking in Fallout 3" until he implemented every single recipe in
his favourite book.

> FALLOUT3, for example, I did download a mod that kept weapons
> from deteriorating for the simple reason that I own a Colt M1911
> that just had its 100th birthday, and it shoots as good as it did
> when it came from the armory in 1912. But I didn't *need* that
> mod.

Skyrim doesn't "needs" mods. Still, I dowloaded a lot of hi-res texures
packs, a graphics accelerator that balances the hi-res textures and,
expecially, the combo "dark nights + deadly dragons". The first makes the
night pitch blach in absence of light, the second makes the dragons even
more powerful *and* removes the power-scaling according to the character's
level. There is nothing like going around in the middle of the night and
hearing the roar of an unseen dragon flying overhead, while being fully
aware that he can turn you into a block of cinder in a blink if he notices
you. I swear I have played survival-horrors that are much less scary.

Are these improvements "obligatory"? No. Are they welcome? To me and to
scores of others, yes. There is a reason, to quote Eddy, why people in the
industry scramble to provide modding tools, and it isn't out of goodwill.

> Why do we need alternative databases? Why would we want
> them?

Why people modded WitP's DB? Or TOAW one? Or, just to give a contemporary
example, why people are already modding "Armored Brigade" DB? There is no
single answer, but they range from "give more granularity to the model" to
"create what I feel beign a more faithful model according to my experience",
to "extend/expand the DB to other countries/eras".

Add "The Illusion of Choice" marketing concept I explained before, and you
will see how the ability to play with your toy the way you want - and to
share your experience with others will make a lot *more* costumers happy.

> And I find it utterly surreal that there's a flame-war about
> "modding" and "databases" ... *before we even have the
> game in our hands*!

No one denies this. Herman wrote the very same in his answer to you and I,
for one, am among those who hope that sanity will prevail. However one can
express a preliminary judgement by considering the developers' past track
record, their open declarations of intent in the official forums, and the
possibility to compare the declared route with the different one taken by
successful games of the same kind. You don't needed for the Costa Concordia
to have "the wreck in her hands" to see how steaming towards an island was
not going to end well.

Of course when among the "motivations" you can also find the stray bit of
slander aimed at yours truly V.B. (http://www.warfaresims.com/?p=1507) I
guess that the need to answer by pointing out some *facts* just presents
itself - if only to offer a counterpoint to the fiction.

However, as I said, I never really bothered to answer to that streak of
rants, mostly because any reader of average intelligence can see how they
are torpedoing themselves by simply checking some facts (and if you bother
to read this thread you will see how people who think otherwise *always* end
up with eggs on their faces). Not to mention the total unprofessionality of
the whole affair. What I find really interesting, however, is how the
developers are making strategic choices about their game based on the
assumption that those delusional beliefs are true. The part of my brain that
is always fascinated by how the brain works is now seeing in real time some
dudes developing a game after having lost the ability to discern fact from
fiction, and this is just... interesting :o)

> Hmmm. Can you possibly be arguing that product design should
> be a democracy?

No. I'm arguing that product design in some genres can be compared to
writing a Constitution. The Fathers of the Constitution of the United States
(or of the Italian one after 1948) weren't "Republican", or "Democrats" or
else: they simply gave a robust infrastructure which allowed to people to
live together and *still* freely assemble in parties that not always shared
the same ideas. This was the strenght of their work. Of course it is not the
only way to do it (see East Germany or Ghaddafi's Libya ^^), but today is
mutually accepted that it is the best one.

Having said that, you are perfectly right: luckily people are not "born"
with a game, but are able to vote with their wallets about where they want
to spend their free time.

All of the above, anyway, is just to say that, IMHO, the use of words like
"triumph" in the same sentence with "Command" is a little bit premature.
But, who knows, maybe after having said "Dungeons & Dragons 4E will not end
well because the developers *think* they are smart" and seeing D&D 4E crash
faster than any other edition in history, I'm being a little bit over my
head... :o)

[HermanH]

On Jan 21, 2:08 pm, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <b8f9eaaa-6c15-446c-8ef2-
> 54a64a0f9...@m4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, herman...@gmail.com says...

Certainly, the ability to modify scenarios or databases will never be
the deciding factor for the success of any game. I, too, can think of
games that fit your criteria. However, the lack of third-party
modifications may be important to some since they provide free
additional content to the end user. Would game users want to be
limited to the 10 scenarios that comes from the company or have the
opportunity to play 600 scenarios provided by the community?

[HermanH]

On Jan 21, 1:56 pm, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> I guess I'm just not seeing the "problem" as it pertains to COMMAND;
> Bostonmyk has already explained that the scenario editor is up to the
> task of altering the database information for a particular scenario.
> Why do we need alternative databases?  Why would we want them?

You need alternatives because no one wants to be forced to share the
same perception of reality of some clown who currently happens to be
"in power".

Way back in the dark days of Harpoon, there was the Great Strafing
debate. Someone played a scenario and strafed some land targets. Of
course, the clown in charge of the database screamed bloody murder
about how this was somehow unrealistic even though this tactic has
been used in every air campaign from Falklands to current day
Afghanistan. So, in a tantrum, he modified the database so that
strafing would not be possible.

Now, if you wanted to actually employ a realistic tactic, you had to
beg and plead this fool to allow it. With the ability to modify your
own database, you could just change the relevant values and play the
game the you want to play it and not be beholden to anyone else.

[Bostonmyk]

Players will be able to build scenarios, modify units in the scenarios
and share import files.

MM

[Giftzwerg]

In article <14e69de3-53d8-427b-895b-032f910abc99
@n7g2000pbd.googlegroups.com>, herm...@gmail.com says...

> > I guess I'm just not seeing the "problem" as it pertains to COMMAND;
> > Bostonmyk has already explained that the scenario editor is up to the
> > task of altering the database information for a particular scenario.
> > Why do we need alternative databases?  Why would we want them?
>
>
> You need alternatives because no one wants to be forced to share the
> same perception of reality of some clown who currently happens to be
> "in power".

<boggle>

*They're building their game*!!!

They're only "in power" because they're taking all the risks associated
with bringing a new product to market. Of-fucking-course they're "in
power." They don't owe us anything beyond delivering a working product
in return for our money.

If you think they're "clowns," then my suggestion would be to not-buy
the product. Why should they kowtow to you? Or me?

> Way back in the dark days of Harpoon, there was the Great Strafing
> debate. Someone played a scenario and strafed some land targets. Of
> course, the clown in charge of the database screamed bloody murder
> about how this was somehow unrealistic even though this tactic has
> been used in every air campaign from Falklands to current day
> Afghanistan. So, in a tantrum, he modified the database so that
> strafing would not be possible.
>
> Now, if you wanted to actually employ a realistic tactic, you had to
> beg and plead this fool to allow it. With the ability to modify your
> own database, you could just change the relevant values and play the
> game the you want to play it and not be beholden to anyone else.

Or, you could just voice your opinion and not give him your money.

Christ, you people seem to think that you have some public commons
rights over a product that someone else is spending his money and effort
to create.

Reality check; you don't.

I say let them build the game they want, in the manner they want. My
only "risk" is the $50 I'm giving them the day they release it.

[Giftzwerg]

In article <3023acf4-db79-473a-9f98-0db66abbccc6
@v6g2000pba.googlegroups.com>, herm...@gmail.com says...

> Certainly, the ability to modify scenarios or databases will never be
> the deciding factor for the success of any game. I, too, can think of
> games that fit your criteria. However, the lack of third-party
> modifications may be important to some since they provide free
> additional content to the end user. Would game users want to be
> limited to the 10 scenarios that comes from the company or have the
> opportunity to play 600 scenarios provided by the community?

I can't play the fucking scenarios that come with HARPOON3, because the
fucking thing is porked. And has been since the Bush 41 Administration.

And ... there's a scenario editor!