Alpha Test Game 4

[Avacar]

Well, that was quite explosive!

I don't know if this is a bug or not, but the game asked me if I wanted to tail my own guy...

Not a bug so much that it doesn't matter w.r.t. tailing, so I haven't bothered programming in an exclusion from being able to tail your own people. Minor detail, really, that I can get around to later when I start programming again. This is exactly the type of thing I need you guys to keep track of, however, and remind me about when I ask for it!

It also seems I've misunderstood the weapon firing rules...I thought you could fire guns or missiles, not both at the same time. Looks like that happened a couple of times this turn. Missed an opportunity to cause some serious damage, looks like.

You can definitely fire both each round, and should if you can! I believe I've programmed the orders window to only allow valid orders, so if you can command it, it should be allowed in the rules... but then again, we are still alpha testing the online game (and beta testing the rules) so if you find mis-matches, continue to point them out!

Just a reminder to everyone, 'cause I know it has been a while since I last mentioned this, but the key focus this game is to continue to try and test tailing features, as well as missiles of all types (and their decoy/avoidance). Missiles were a bigger focus in Game 3, but I seem to recall there might have been some minor bugs with the heat-seeker and the IR missiles that needed testing.

 

[capi3101]

Okay, new question then: my dumb-fire hit Sierra 2, even though he took evasive action. Was that supposed to happen? Not that I'm complaining, mind you, but that Heat Seeker tossed at Quail 4 should've hit as well, shouldn't it?

 

[Avacar]

Okay, new question then: my dumb-fire hit Sierra 2, even though he took evasive action. Was that supposed to happen?

Yes, the missile's speed is greater than Sierra2's afterburner speed, thus at the end of the movement, the missile caught up and still hit.

Not that I'm complaining, mind you, but that Heat Seeker tossed at Quail 4 should've hit as well, shouldn't it?

Nope! A failed Sheldon slide just means you turn instead of sliding. Based on where that heat seeker originated vs. where Quail 4 ended up, the heat seeker couldn't make it... in fact you can see that the heat seeker tried to chase, and ended up 2 squares west of Dark Archon. I never got around to implementing missile pop-ups; I really should do them since they'd be easy.. that would make it easier to tell which missile is which.

Conclusion: these missile hits were correct! Keep asking though!

 

[capi3101]

Yes, the missile's speed is greater than Sierra2's afterburner speed, thus at the end of the movement, the missile caught up and still hit.

Hmm......just making sure I understand here.

On page 10 of the rules in regards to evasive action, it says "If the ship's speed at least equals the speed of the missile chasing it, that missile will detonate without effect. E.g. a Rapier-II heading straight with an afterburner speed of 13 could evade an IR missile with a speed of 13. The Rapier could not outrun the missile, though, if it performed a 180-degree turn".

The rules say the speed of a dumbfire is 12, and the afterburner speed of a Sabre is also 12......so, is it because the Sabre's course wasn't directly away from the missile? It couldn't outrun it because I fired it off in it's face?

I figured out what was going on with that Heat-Seeker after I asked the question, but thanks anyway for clarifying what was going on there.

 

[Avacar]

On page 10 of the rules in regards to evasive action, it says "If the ship's speed at least equals the speed of the missile chasing it, that missile will detonate without effect. E.g. a Rapier-II heading straight with an afterburner speed of 13 could evade an IR missile with a speed of 13. The Rapier could not outrun the missile, though, if it performed a 180-degree turn".

Good catch. I'll have to look to see how I coded the post-evasive missile-hit detection. There might be a bug that doesn't work out as you see here. (Something like >= when it should be > )

This *could* be a bug. At this point, I'd also appreciate if Ironduke looks at what happens, and weighs in on whether based on how you designed the rules, should that not have hit?

 

[Ironduke]

Sorry, just came back from a long day at the recording studio. Okay, so: Sierra 2 took evasive action, and considering the angle at which the DF was launched, there's no way the missile could have hit the target. As far as I can tell, capi3101's DF should have missed, and there's no stray missile that could have hit Sierra 2 either. Meaning Sierra 2 should get his money back and there's probably a bug or loophole involved somewhere...
(On the down side for Sierra 2, he's now a sitting duck in turn 6 due to his evasive maneuver.)

 

[capi3101]

Good to know; I was pretty sure I was reading the rules right. Can y'all correct the damage, or is it too late for this game?

Different question for y'all, on the game itself. Is 25x23 the typical size of an engagement grid? Does the size change based on the type of engagement? A friend of mine would like to try the game out with pencil-and-paper and I have an old SFB set, which is why I ask. He's also wanting to try to adapt the stats for WC3 craft; I'm trying to encourage him to try out the base game first. I do think I see how y'all arrived at most of the stats, but some insight on the "to hit" number, shield recharge rate and point cost would be nice, if y'all are willing to share that kind of info.

 

[Ironduke]

Okay, second try... My first reply got wiped clean when the forum did some sort of auto-refresh (?) after I was half-way through.

I guess Avacar could do something about the damage incorrectly done to Sierra 2. As far as grid size goes: No, 25x23 is not fixed or anything. Personally, I'm using modular background tiles for the board game version of WCTO, and Avacar just wanted to try out different sizes of grids in different test games. The map size can be bigger for campaign battles and scenarios, although 20x20 is still a good minimum size even for dogfights (due to afterburner speeds).

I can't check right now, but I think I already did some of the WC3 craft stats - but only for those that have been around in the WC2 era. (Which is why the Tallahassee and Southampton are included as well.) I'm pretty sure I fleshed out the WC2 era Arrow, for example, and I also did some (or all?) ships from Privateer. The only reason they're not currently in the game is that I'm missing the gfx.

"To Hit" was actually made up by considering a ship's silhouette, throwing in its maneuverability for good measure, and then balancing it out against all other craft. Regarding shield recharge rates, I think I just looked at different sources like fighter descriptions in manuals, actual gameplay and other "canon" sources. Point cost, on the other hand, is something that's absolutely not set in stone. Honestly, I'm not satisfied with the current point cost values either, so that's completely up for discussion.

 

[capi3101]

Okay...mind if I take a crack at one that's not in the game just yet? Here comes the Crossbow...

Real stats, from three sources:
A-18 Crossbow - 24m; 40mT; Spd: 370; No AB; Acc Avg; 8dps; Shield: 25F/A; Armor: 20F/25P/25S/20A; Guns: MAS 3, NEU 2, Turret; Missiles: TORP 4x1, FF 3x1; Special: Tractor, Jump Drive

Okay. And now here's my guesstimate:
To Hit: 6 (The Crossbow is smaller than the Sabre but just as maneuverable, though larger than the Rapier. bb vol.~3,313 m^3)
Shield: 50/+5 (the recharge is a guess based on the recharge rates of other bombers already in the game.)
Hull: 85
Cost: 8 (based on a higher maneuverability rate and slightly stronger firepower than the Broadsword)
Max Speed: 4
Accel: 1 (same as Jalkehi)
Turn Rate: 3 (8 dps, same listed as Sabre, Ferret)
Afterburner: None
Jump Drive: x2
Fighter Comp: none
Decoys: none
Missiles: 4 Torpedoes, 3 Pilum FF
Guns: 3 Mass driver Cannons, 2 Neutron Guns, 1 Turret (Aft)

I suppose the Tractor Beam would be a new feature, which is why it isn't in the game already. Then again, the Broadsword should have one too, so that may not be an issue.

How'd I do? Even remotely close?

 

[capi3101]

I may have mentioned that I'm working on a game that's similar to TacOps. Right now, I'm using a point-based purchase system based on the overall general strength of the craft (shield+armor+strongest weapon), though I may have to change it. Stupid torpedoes and Mace missiles are so much stronger than everything else...they make bombers almost impossible to field for beginning players, and they make them more expensive than some capital ships.

If you're interested in adjusting y'all's point system, I'd be happy to have a discussion on the matter.

Had thought to try to do the Morningstar, but then I realized I'd have to come up with something on Mace missiles. The Wing Commander IV cluebook has them at approximately half the strength of torpedoes, but I also know that I've blown up my fair share of Ralathas in WC Academy with one Mace, so it's kinda hard to judge their overall strength.

 

[capi3101]

Turn 7, movement phase:

I think something's broken with missiles. I lobbed a heat seeker (speed 10) at Sierra 2...a Sabre, which has an afterburner of 12...he evaded, and yet the damn missile still hit him. He should've easily outran it.

Moreover (and this is something I guess I need clarification on), his evasive maneuver would've taken him off the board, wouldn't it? Let me see if I've gotten this right: he was three hexes from the edge of the board. Afterburner for 12 means he would've gone forward six, then turned once. He had to have turned again (or he would definitely have run off the board), so that would've taken up two moves (p. 3: Each hex side you turn
your ship after the first reduces the ship’s remaining movement by 1 hex – 2 hexes when using afterburners). So he could move four spaces forward after that, which should've put him right on the board's edge. So, I guess running off the board is okay as long as you can get your butt back on it by the end of the move?

Another concern...my math is right in the context of the rules, and yet that Sabre is two hexes from the edge of the board.

Exact same thing seems to have happened to Quail 5, if I've done the math right. At AB of 14, it should've easily outran the missile. And it looks like it's moved forward an extra space.

Also can't help but notice that all the missiles seemed to have found their marks. That seems statistically unlikely (unless I've completely misunderstood the rules regarding how missile hits are determined).

Annoyed that I missed the opportunity to tail Sierra 2, but then again he pulled evasive, so I know where he'll be (for all the more good that information does me. And then again......).

 

[Avacar]

Sorry, just came back from a long day at the recording studio. Okay, so: Sierra 2 took evasive action, and considering the angle at which the DF was launched, there's no way the missile could have hit the target. As far as I can tell, capi3101's DF should have missed, and there's no stray missile that could have hit Sierra 2 either. Meaning Sierra 2 should get his money back and there's probably a bug or loophole involved somewhere...
(On the down side for Sierra 2, he's now a sitting duck in turn 6 due to his evasive maneuver.)

Oops. Yeah I was looking at the wrong missile. That totally should have been a miss. Something to look into. I also noticed that my firing reports don't actually list the target unless the weapon is a missile. That's kind of annoying and should be easily fixed. I'll look into it.
Good to know; I was pretty sure I was reading the rules right. Can y'all correct the damage, or is it too late for this game?
[/quote]
Well these games are more for my benefit for testing than to actually let you have fun (insert evil cackling smiley here). That said, if i'd been on the forums and caught that in time, sure, but I'm not going to go back and propagate the hp change through a few turns.

Different question for y'all, on the game itself. Is 25x23 the typical size of an engagement grid?

As far as grid size goes: No, 25x23 is not fixed or anything. Personally, I'm using modular background tiles for the board game version of WCTO, and Avacar just wanted to try out different sizes of grids in different test games. The map size can be bigger for campaign battles and scenarios, although 20x20 is still a good minimum size even for dogfights (due to afterburner speeds).

So I've already coded in the engagement size as a variable. I'm also just tiling the cells. We stick with this size because.. well it is manageable on my monitor! Once we have a working level editor, you guys could conceivably run 100x100 sized maps... just realize I haven't coded any sort of mini-map or easy navigation (at least not yet).

I can't check right now, but I think I already did some of the WC3 craft stats - but only for those that have been around in the WC2 era. (Which is why the Tallahassee and Southampton are included as well.) I'm pretty sure I fleshed out the WC2 era Arrow, for example, and I also did some (or all?) ships from Privateer. The only reason they're not currently in the game is that I'm missing the gfx.

Well just to pipe in on this, from my point of view, as long as it isn't using a new weapon type (for now) I can easily
accommodate any number of ships. Once the rules start changing or adding new weapon sets, I get a bit stuck coding-wise in needing to do new code and new exceptions.

At this point, I'd say any further discussion on ship stats/updates/new ships deserves its own thread and not be part of the Game 4 specific beta testing thread. This whole subforum is dedicated to WCTO/O

Turn 7, movement phase:

I think something's broken with missiles. I lobbed a heat seeker (speed 10) at Sierra 2...a Sabre, which has an afterburner of 12...he evaded, and yet the damn missile still hit him. He should've easily outran it.

Sure seems that way. Missiles are still one of our current 'not quite guaranteed' features. Clearly we're having trouble with evasive actions counting against missile avoidance. I'll need to look at that code specifically, since that has clearly been the problem twice now.

So, I guess running off the board is okay as long as you can get your butt back on it by the end of the move?

*cough* yes. Probably not what *should* happen, but the code only does a cleanup at the end of the turn, so if you can leave the engagement zone and get back in using 1 move, you can currently survive. This is tied in to the lack of line-of-sight calculations; once those are in, tracking a shot off the board should be easier mid-flight without processor lag. (remember this entire game is running in a web server!)

Another concern...my math is right in the context of the rules, and yet that Sabre is two hexes from the edge of the board.

Exact same thing seems to have happened to Quail 5, if I've done the math right. At AB of 14, it should've easily outran the missile. And it looks like it's moved forward an extra space.

Well perhaps going off the board does funny things.

Also can't help but notice that all the missiles seemed to have found their marks. That seems statistically unlikely (unless I've completely misunderstood the rules regarding how missile hits are determined).

No, you've probably understood the rules correctly, and found bugs. Keep in mind that while WCTO itself is sort of in a beta testing stage, you've volunteered for alpha-level testing of WCTOO. It is very buggy and you're helping me find them. We're still only in Phase 5 of my 7?ish phase development plan.

Keep it coming, Capi. This stuff is useful.

 

[capi3101]

Well these games are more for my benefit for testing than to actually let you have fun (insert evil cackling smiley here). That said, if i'd been on the forums and caught that in time, sure, but I'm not going to go back and propagate the hp change through a few turns.

Sure seems that way. Missiles are still one of our current 'not quite guaranteed' features. Clearly we're having trouble with evasive actions counting against missile avoidance. I'll need to look at that code specifically, since that has clearly been the problem twice now.

So my missile hit counts. Gee. Darn... <mwahahahahahahahahaha />

So I've already coded in the engagement size as a variable. I'm also just tiling the cells. We stick with this size because.. well it is manageable on my monitor! Once we have a working level editor, you guys could conceivably run 100x100 sized maps... just realize I haven't coded any sort of mini-map or easy navigation (at least not yet).

Okay. So my SFB will probably work just fine if/when we try the game out with pencil-and-paper then.

Well just to pipe in on this, from my point of view, as long as it isn't using a new weapon type (for now) I can easily
accommodate any number of ships. Once the rules start changing or adding new weapon sets, I get a bit stuck coding-wise in needing to do new code and new exceptions.

At this point, I'd say any further discussion on ship stats/updates/new ships deserves its own thread and not be part of the Game 4 specific beta testing thread. This whole subforum is dedicated to WCTO/O

Right. Sorry...I haven't been following the project for very long at all. I mean, literally, the first day I'd even heard of it was the same day I volunteered to take over for Pantheos. Still not sure where everything is in regards to TacOps as a project...

So.................am I even remotely close on the Crossbow?

*cough* yes. Probably not what *should* happen, but the code only does a cleanup at the end of the turn, so if you can leave the engagement zone and get back in using 1 move, you can currently survive. This is tied in to the lack of line-of-sight calculations; once those are in, tracking a shot off the board should be easier mid-flight without processor lag. (remember this entire game is running in a web server!)

Okay, thanks for letting me know about that. Seemed like you shouldn't be able to do that; makes sticking close to the edge somewhat dangerous.

Well perhaps going off the board does funny things.

Quail 5 didn't go off the board. Not even remotely close. Might be worth checking to see if y'all's code takes away two moves instead of just one when you make an extra turn on 'burner.

No, you've probably understood the rules correctly, and found bugs. Keep in mind that while WCTO itself is sort of in a beta testing stage, you've volunteered for alpha-level testing of WCTOO. It is very buggy and you're helping me find them. We're still only in Phase 5 of my 7?ish phase development plan.

Keep it coming, Capi. This stuff is useful.

Glad to be of service.

 

[Avacar]

Okay so after some investigation I discovered:

• If a ship took evasive action, but ended up within range of a target (bearing ignored) it was considered hittable.
• I was tracking if a ship took evasive action for movement reasons, but didn't actually directly consider this when looking at missile hits.

So after going through chaffs, point defense and everything else a missile was considered a miss anyway if:

$range > $missile->speed

I've updated this to be:

(($range > $missile->speed)||($target->evasive && ($bearing > 7 && $bearing < 353)))

As a rough, but generally (and hopefully) accurate way to quickly tell a missile to go into chase/explode mode instead of free-hits.

I have also augmented the field report for combat round to now include the shot-at target for non-missile weapons.

Test and reply back with issues/concerns.

edit: YUCK! That PHP tag makes it look really ugly. Last time I use that thing.

edit2: BONUS TIME. I also just finally enabled the Targetting: field on the slide-out panel. It will now list any long-term (read HS and IR) missile locks currently on-going. Based on how I implemented this, it will back-propagate to all past games as well (which supported missiles and are in phase 5).

 

[Wedge009]

Hi everyone. Looks like everyone is having fun with this. Just letting you know that I never stopped monitoring progress, but it looks like you have the basic web stuff all sorted out and are testing/developing the game mechanics, so there isn't much more that I can help with. Still, it's fun watching you blow each other up. Keep up the good work, developers and testers alike.

 

[capi3101]

Turn 7, combat phase

I don't know if this is something y'all are checking or not, but I didn't get any notice that the combat phase had begun. Only way I knew was by checking the game site. Still haven't gotten it yet.

Once again I'm wondering if the game is handling extra turning while on afterburners correctly (or at least while a Shelton Slide is going on). I did an off-the board Shelton Slide for Grimreaper this turn (cheating, I know...). By my calculations, he should've wound up in the hex immediately above and to the right of Dark Archon. Instead he's above and to the left.

Speaking of Grimreaper, I did the Shelton Slide, and then attempted a Barrel Roll in the same turn. I failed the Barrel Roll while succeeding on the slide, but should the Barrel Roll even have been an option for me in this case? Rules on p. 14 say "Combining two or more maneuvers in the same turn is not allowed.", and both count as maneuvers. Is that why I failed the Barrel Roll?

Realized I missed an opportunity to test out something that'd been bothering me with the Shelton Slide; this one's more a point of confusion for me. While trying to figure out Wandering Soul's move for the turn, I had the thought to do a Shelton Slide. Turn 2 and take advantage of the fact that the game wasn't accounting for the extra move it should be taking away to wind up three hexes above and to the right of Sierra 2 (which couldn't move because he took evasive last end phase). Turn 2 to the left then, putting Sierra 2 in perfect position to get blown away. I didn't do this because A) it would be cheating on two levels - by flying off and then getting back on the board, and then by using a suspected bug to my advantage - B) because it would've put Wandering Soul in position to get blasted himself (especially if the Shelton failed; I wouldn't have gotten a return fire opportunity), and C) because I wasn't 100% sure I could actually do that - with a turning rate of 3 for the Epee, could I turn 2 during the burn and then another 2 for the Shelton, or would I be limited to 1 turn for the Shelton because I'd turned two during the burn? That's what's been bothering me about the Slide; on p. 15, it says "Ship may turn its bow 1 or 2 hex sides to port/starboard at the end of its movement, as long as that doesn’t exceed its Turn Rate"; does that take into account any turn made prior to the turn at the end? Gonna be a little bit mad if that would've been a possible (and mostly legal) move...

I was going to have issue with Dark Archon not being able to lob a HS at Zeta1 this combat phase (since he's in the correct arc and in range), but then I realized that Zeta1 doesn't have his butt turned towards me. So, no problems there after all (aside from him being completely out of position to shoot).

Not many of us are in firing position for anything this round, looks like. Might still get to see if FF missiles are working like they should...

 

[Avacar]

Turn 7, combat phase

I don't know if this is something y'all are checking or not, but I didn't get any notice that the combat phase had begun. Only way I knew was by checking the game site. Still haven't gotten it yet.

Hmm. check your spam filters. The email notification system is one of the 'newer' add-on features, and not 100% verified. That said, thus far we have found spam filters to be the culprit a few times.

Once again I'm wondering if the game is handling extra turning while on afterburners correctly (or at least while a Shelton Slide is going on). I did an off-the board Shelton Slide for Grimreaper this turn (cheating, I know...). By my calculations, he should've wound up in the hex immediately above and to the right of Dark Archon. Instead he's above and to the left.

I haven't taken enough time to look at these situations closely enough to determine if there is an error. Keep pointing this out, though, until I say it is either okay as-is or fixed.

Speaking of Grimreaper, I did the Shelton Slide, and then attempted a Barrel Roll in the same turn. I failed the Barrel Roll while succeeding on the slide, but should the Barrel Roll even have been an option for me in this case? Rules on p. 14 say "Combining two or more maneuvers in the same turn is not allowed.", and both count as maneuvers. Is that why I failed the Barrel Roll?

That's a question for Ironduke, but as far as I'm concerned, you can combine a barrel roll with any other maneuver. You failed the barrel roll independently; the two difficulties aren't crossed in any way.

A) it would be cheating on two levels - by flying off and then getting back on the board, and then by using a suspected bug to my advantage -

Feel free to cheat as long as it it to test/confirm a bug. Then keep bugging me until I fix it. We're still in testing phase.

 

[Avacar]

Once again I'm wondering if the game is handling extra turning while on afterburners correctly (or at least while a Shelton Slide is going on). I did an off-the board Shelton Slide for Grimreaper this turn (cheating, I know...). By my calculations, he should've wound up in the hex immediately above and to the right of Dark Archon. Instead he's above and to the left.

Okay I looked into afterburners for you. I was surprised to find that I couldn't see anywhere that I'd taken off the -2 per extra turn for afterburners (vs. -1 for regular movement) at all. Shelton slide code, logically, calls the afterburner code. As far as I can tell, this has nothing to do with the edge of the board at all, nor shelton slides specifically, but all afterburner-type movement (even evasive). Before I go and code in the change I want someone to try afterburning with a turn of at least 2 that doesn't go off the board during next movement phase. If no one can do this during that phase, I'll add a new ship just so we can test.

This will actually be an easy fix, but the code for the game isn't as straight forward as it used to be, so I just want to make sure I've read through what I did originally correctly, and that I didn't do something really wacky and hide that turn code somewhere else with an override for ships with afterburners.

That said, looking at the code, I'm pretty confident that that is the bug; a lack of a -2 on turns >1 for afterburners in general.

edit: I've got the code fix ready to go, but it isn't committed/online until I get confirmation that this is a global afterburner issue as requested above.

edit2: I've noticed some of the ship popups are now bleeding info. I've asked Wedge to look at it, but if he doesn't have time, I'll take a crack since in theory I wrote the css originally... I just suck at it.

 

[Wedge009]

I've noticed some of the ship popups are now bleeding info. I've asked Wedge to look at it, but if he doesn't have time, I'll take a crack since in theory I wrote the css originally... I just suck at it.

I'll have a look at it later, but I suspect it may be something to do with the margin/padding. There were some overlapping specifications previously and I just resolved the conflicts, not knowing which values should be the right ones. Sorry for the inconvenience.

 

[Wedge009]

Sorry for the delay - Sundays are always busy for me.

Looks like the issue was with the stat class. You previously specified some values for margin-left and margin-top, but also had 'margin: 0pt', which was obviously a conflict. I left the margin-left and margin-top as-is and set margin-bottom and margin-right to 0pt. Now I've removed the margin-left and margin-top specification and replaced everything with 'margin: 0pt' and it seems to be working as you intended.

A similar situation arose for the missile_target ID, but I can't find anything that uses the style, so you'll have to check on this when it arises. For that situation, you have a conflict where both padding and padding-top are specified, but with differing values.

Hope this helps you.