Well, it's not just Helos anymore...

[tws71669]

Unless I missed something, those darned AK-74's are shooting down C-130's now too. One shot one kill to a whole new level.

<PULSE:2>
Artillery Fire:
Missile Launches:
Direct Fire:
Firing Unit: 1st CIS Engineer Squad-1 Loc:1613
Fire Grp: 0 Trg No: 0 No Rnds Per Wpn: 1
Wpn: 5.45mm AK-74 Assault Rifle Ammo: 5.45 x 39mm
Target: 1 x C-130 Cargo. All Moving. Face: N. Loc:1713
Range: 170m
Round: 1
Direct Hit
Projections: Kill: 9; Damage: 9; Suprn: 1
Impact Velocity: 818 mps
HE Penetration: 0mm
Base Kinetic Penetration: 50mm
Base Heat Penetration: 0mm
Final Penetration: 17mm
Excess Penetration: 7mm
Effective Armor Thickness: 9mm
Impact Surface: Hull Front
Spall: 0
Target: Destroyed
Wreckage exists
1 Passengers Killed
2 Passengers Killed
1 Passengers Killed
No other effects

Has this been reported?

-T

 

[meade95]

This is becoming unbelievably frustrating......The game still at this point lacks any ability to play.....I am completely understanding of Scott (with HPS)....and I totally know that he is working on fixing issue after issue that pops up......However, I just think there is no possible way we are being given the full story when it comes to how this game was developed....There is no way POA-2 is the same version that was sent/sold to the USAF (sans the editor)...

I just seems like there is no way to even play test the game for enjoyment. Because you need to "review" each and every occurance within the game...just to try and figure out if it is a bug or FOW.....or something in-between.......ahh, just blowing of steam....This board is great though for information concerning POA-2......(and I really do hope this games comes around to be all it was thought to be)...

 

[tws71669]

However, I just think there is no possible way we are being given the full story when it comes to how this game was developed....There is no way POA-2 is the same version that was sent/sold to the USAF (sans the editor)...

I mentioned the same thing in a prev. post... I CANNOT believe that the Air Force NEVER came across some of these bugs. Therefor we are NOT playing the "same" version... regardless of what we are being told. I mean seriously, how could the USAF not take issue with helos and airplanes dropping like flies...

I just seems like there is no way to even play test the game for enjoyment. Because you need to "review" each and every occurance within the game...just to try and figure out if it is a bug or FOW.....or something in-between.......

That's my problem at the moment too, I am trying very hard to keep track of bugs and submit them but even when I run across something I can't tell if this is user error (usually my first thought... design error or just a bug.)

One thing for sure... makes me wanna sell my C-130 I got in the backyard and buy one of those Russian Rifles...!

 

[Hub]

Just have to be patient...

There are many broken things...none of the specialized engineering equipment works, I've yet to successfully complete any CAS or IF missions, all the things other people have mentioned (and haven't- helos can climb instantly from 5 to 5000m with no time delay, for example).

Scott has very kindly been sending me the builds as they come out, and I've been testing them for him under Win 98- I figure I've put in over 150 hours of testing so far, since the first build came out.

All we can do is hang on and hope for the best- he'll get it fixed eventually.

 

[Dr Zaius]

I'm not sure that the Air Force has been using this program for any longer than we have. I had a phone conversation with folks at HPS about POA2, and they were friendly and answered my questions. From what I was told, the POA2 team is working nearly 7 days a week to figure out what the problems are and get them fixed.

I can also tell you that some of the bugs have been introduced since the original game was released. We have been demanding a lot of interface tweaks and "wish list" items, and Scott has been able to implement a small number of these already. In the course of adding these things other previously stable code was broken. If we are going to ask for changes and/or enhancements to the basic game, then we will have to accept a certain period of testing and tweaking to make sure everything works. That's where we come in.

Was the game released too early? Yes, however, there is a plus side to all of this. By being part of the "beta test" (for lack of a better term), we are having a direct impact on the development of the game. Portions of the interface and other game mechanics are being changed based on our feedback. I'm not saying I'm happy about the bugs, but some good may come out of it. POA2 may have started life as a premature baby, but with our this this "baby" may end up very solid. The more quality feedback and sound suggestions we provide to Scott, the better chance there is that POA2 will go in the direction we think it should.

When strange things happen in the game make sure you provide them to Scott directly. I don't believe he reads these forums on a regular basis so posting stuff here for him may not be the best way to give him feedback. Yes, I would like to see people post here as well so that the rest of us can share in the communication, but send bug reports and suggestions directly to Scott.

 

[tws71669]

Well, what have you seen fixed or improved?
what can you tell us...

 

[meade95]

I do agree with that. That with many of us (early) customers....we are at least all having a "say" in how the final version will look. I do give Scott and HPS 100% credit in that they are keeping all of us informed (to a great degree)....and seem to be working on making this game work....(in the bigger picture)....

At times it just seems nice to vent......But I still look forward to the final version of POA2 and how it will work.....

 

[Old&Slow]

I can also tell you that some of the bugs have been introduced since the original game was released. We have been demanding a lot of interface tweaks and "wish list" items, and Scott has been able to implement a small number of these already. In the course of adding these things other previously stable code was broken. If we are going to ask for changes and/or enhancements to the basic game, then we will have to accept a certain period of testing and tweaking to make sure everything works. That's where we come in.

1: I don`t want to sound like a P***k AGAIN, but fiddeling with the game by adding player requested enhancements before the code is rock solid and works as it`s supposed to is a _very, very poor idea_ , especially in a Game that is so complex and I don`t know why an experienced programmer like Scott would do that. :surprise:

 

[tws71669]

Okay... I agree that the upside is that we are getting a lot of say in the games developement which is a really good thing.
But "Stable Code"... that's being generous.
Besides things like load/unload and the airstrike/CAS bugs, the ubersnipers and such are not wishlist enhancements. I just wanna be fair in stating the case. The thing to focus on is what can be done now to help improve things. But there should be some understanding that some of these are not enhancements but stability issues, that's all.
-T

 

[tws71669]

I am going to be both kind and diplomatic and respectful to the Forum Moderator by simply saying that the makers of POA2 will not under any circumstances get another dime from me until I see a finished product that delivers a reasonably clean level of gameplay.

HPS just does not have my confidence as a games publisher like it once did. Sorry that HPS has to carry POA2's luggage but that's the way the dollar tumbles...

However, Scott as a programmer has all my confidence that he and his crew are seriously working to rectify their mistakes. And at this point I am doing what He's asked, submit information and bugs as often as possible, that's all we can do... we already lost our investment of $50.

I'm just suprised HPS is still willing to keep POA2 on the shelves and selling it given it's extremely poor condition. But that's not my desicion to make. If it was, I would not want to loose future customers who get thee impression HPS makes cruddy games from POA2 and I've already heard that said on the other POA2 board... sad.

:violin:

-T

 

[tws71669]

I am sticking with this game because I can see the vast, incredible potential that lurks at its perhiphery. If it can develope into what it can be then this will be the best simulation of modern war available to us...

 

[tws71669]

Wargames need maps...lets see, [looks around office] ADC, yeah, thats the ticket, why build an integrated map maker when I can use an existing $50 product! DONE.

Needless to say I could continue, but I'll stop here. My impression of POA2 was poor after the first week I had it. It has since fallen through the floor. With so many GREAT wargames out there right now, I can't fathom why anyone wastes their time on this disaster for free? Play Tacops, ATF, Decisive Action, Harpoon3. Too many good wargamer minds are being wasted on this atrocity!

Having already spent $50 on POS2, I can't imagine dumping another $40 for the privilige of making maps for a game that I can't play! What a fantastic prospect?! What exactly am I missing here?

I was very involved with Harpoon from the point it was still a cardboard photocopy idea... and I can tell you that the original Harpoon had death dealing bugs users never knew about until patches were released many many months later. Likewise with H3 which is still being patched by Jesse Spears and Co. In its original form, issues surrounding sonar and airiel refueling were big show stoppers that took almost a year to fix. Decisive Action has serious issues that might be resolved in the next month or two but how many months has it been out? and ATF has a very long history of it own. My point here is that your examples have very long histories behind them while POA2 is still very new to the civilian community. Although it is bad to be in the posistion we are in, how different is it from some other games we've stuck with?
I am not making excuses here but merely showing that things should be seen in context.

Also, is it possible that ADC2 was used simply becuase it is easier to use pre-exisitng resources in-house rather than reinventing the wheel?
Isn't the second rule of leadership "Knowing and using the resources of the group" ?
It might be that they decided to go this route thinking that many customers already own ADC2 and it would be easy.

Not excuses.... just maybe some perspective.

-Tiberius

 

[Hub]

If I was a developer who had something like ADC 2 to create maps with, I would use it for my games too. What better way to advertise it's virtues than by using it yourself? You have to look at it from a developers viewpoint a bit...

Having to buy it as a separate entity is a difficult call- although it falls in line with HPS's practice of not having in situ map makers for their games- I think that the map maker/editor for PitS and ToP was a separate purchase, if I recall.

It is a lot harder to make maps with ADC 2- way harder, but you can do an awful lot with it. One of it's virtues, and one of the things that makes it so hard to use, is the ability to input elevation information into the map. A lot of editors don't have or need that (like TOAW), or it's simplified (like TacOps- I don't mean simple to mean inferior either, just different).

I tend to look at PoA 2 from a different angle than most, I think. I get the feeling that most players want it to be large maneuvering battles on huge maps. I think it would be more suited to small actions (company size and smaller) on smaller maps- the massive amount of minute detail available seems at odds with the intent on running the game from a TF commanders POV. I think the game as it generally sits now might have been better if the unit size stopped at the platoon level, with the requisite abstractions used. You can give orders to basically any size formation you want right now, granted, but the level of detail kind of makes you want to micromanage anyway.

Micromanaging also tends to come from "not trusting" the AI. For example, in SPWAW, you can let the computer control formations, and you can plot waypoints for movement, but you know you will have to keep an eye on the unruly mob in case part of it tries to drive through a swamp, or worse. One of the better AI's, in my opinion, seems to be that in Highway to the Reich (Matrix/Panther). Generally, it does a pretty good job, but I find the temptation is very strong to want to "fiddle" anyway. In that game, that can be a bad thing, once orders have been given.

One thing I would really like to see is the ability to assign TRP's as in TacOps- for any unit, any time, for any place- not just for defensive units at the start of the game, as is the case now. I think the term "Area of Interest" might be more appropriate. 1st Platoon overwatches that threatening wood 2000m to the left front while 2nd Platoon bounds to the gully at coords 123456...PoA 2 is most of the way there now in that you can set target priority and maximum engagement ranges.

 

[Dr Zaius]

I have suggested to Scott that the map.exe from ADC2 be made available to POA2 owners at no cost. For those unfamiliar with how ADC2 works, let me explain.

ADC2 actually consists of several programs. One is for making maps, one is for creating symbol sets, one is for setting up games (boardgames really), and one is for actually playing live on the internet just like VASL/VASSAL. These are all completely separate programs.

Unless you are actually making new symbols or terrain, the only thing you need to make maps for POA2 is the map.exe. I have proposed to Scott that this portion -- and this portion alone -- be made avaliable to POA2 owners at no charge. People that want to use ADC2 to play other games live will still need to buy the full CD-ROM, however, POA2 owners would be able to use the map editor for free.

This seems like a logical step to me, as well as a good way for HPS to demonstrate its support for the players. If I hear anything I will let you know.

 

[tws71669]

"What honestly puzzles me more than the whole USAF issue, and the beta tester (?) issue, is how did the scenario designers not notice this cr#p when they playtested their scenarios? Surely out of 7 scenarios, at least somebody tried to play one of them before the game shipped right? Yet everytime we get a message from the developer its always in the form (paraphrasing) "Oh Gee, don't understand why that's not working" as if everything was great in the shop and went to hell during shipping!! Its all very odd."

--- I've asked this many times and I have yet to recv. an answer so I have to think that the Devs. and testers here are just not being honest as to what really happened.
Now that they are being asked some very tough questions and not saying Anything except.... ooooops we'll fix it Promise! kinda tells me they got busted being idiot-savants.:devious:
Do they owe us an explanation and some answers to those tough questions, well technically no. But it is a very good businesse policy to just be as forthright as you can be to your client base.:angry:
Making promises to fix things afterwards is good, answering some tough questions about what the heck were you doing is another matter.:devil:

My honest opinion is that there really was no testing, no quality control, and no expectation of being busted for it by a savvy group of forum posters and avid wargamers. I hate to say it but They AINT being honest... and if I am wrong I'll shut my fat mouth.:hush:


I just don't think we're being told the truth only because it's pretty embarassing to be a developer who really didn't live up to the hype.
Maybe that's ego, I dunno... I just wish I knew what the whole story was before I paid for it.
But I don't think anyone from HPS or the Devs for that matter are gonna sit down and entertain me. There not gonna say... "Oh geee, you caught us.... yeah we just shot this out the door and thought wow, yea... testing? Maps? Infantry? Helos? Loading? bahhh... who's gonna know... we'll fix that stuff if anyone notices."

I recently suggested that HPS pull any remaining copies off the racks just to prevent any damage to thier credibility with new customers who might use POA2 as a point of contact... At the least they should be excercising good customer service by stating that this game is alpha-stage and includes a refund. Right now they are marketing it like a finished and shelf-ready product

I am an honest person who treats people as honestly as I would want to be, so when I feel like I am not being dealt with honestly and especially where there is an exchange of money, I am gonna ask for an explanation. I think that's normal for anyone...

Boy, a little integrity goes a long way hmm?
I hope that's understandable.
-T

 

[tws71669]

RE:

What honestly puzzles me more than the whole USAF issue, and the beta tester (?) issue, is how did the scenario designers not notice this cr#p when they playtested their scenarios? Surely out of 7 scenarios, at least somebody tried to play one of them before the game shipped right?

Scott.... HPS.... Please oblige us with an answer.
This is a real question which reflects on the game-maker's attitude towards the finished product. So please tell us... what happened regarding this..?

 

[Kammak]

RE: Don's reply that I'm contradicting myself about complexity and laziness.

If I didn't address it already, here it goes. I don't think there is a contradiction. Is the game complex - Yes. I think it has been overworked in many areas to the point that many bugs are hidden or even introduced by the overworked plumbing. No surprise there. I think its quite arguable how much value was added by the complex FOW and sitrep reporting. Had that reporting been accessible by the user, then it had value. But right now it could all be a sham for all we know. They could be sending subspace reports on communicators, but until the players can see it, it doesn't mean a thing. Likewise, the whole sound,light,sight spotting issue. What is the point of having these values for every unit if there is no feedback ABOUT them? Do I have any option to control them? Can I shut off engines? Can I infiltrate infantry instead of walking them? Can I create a diversion by making excessive noise with a unit? Its like someone with some vision mentioned these things at a meeting then disappeared, and those without vision implemented it without understanding WHY.

The whole real time combat results thing I think is a joke. And I think it is laziness. Here's why. There is no creative genius required to load formula and data points into a database. Yeah it takes some work to enter it, and to write the code to run it, but again that is rote stuff, and the end result is to dump the work onto the gamer's system and make him run the numbers each and every time. The talent, I think, comes in being able to look at the real world data and build appropriate result tables which you can bounce modifiers against at run time to get reasonable combat results at a tenth or even hundreth the cycle cost. That takes talent. Not loading in formulae and data and then crunching it every time somebody shoots...that's rote. That's replacing dev talent with 2.5ghz Pentium IV cycles.

Do you really feel you get results that are a hundred times more accurate than what you get from ATF or Tacops? Would you suggest ATF players upgrade their machines so they can crunch combat results in realtime in POA2? I sure wouldn't.

Now consider how much development time was spent on database loading, getting all the necessary minutia for these real time calculations, and then look at the state of the game. Again, do a value-added check.

The whole infantry thing I think I covered in my previous two posts. I don't have any doubt that that issue is anything but laziness or time-rush. (The third option is even scarier - a complete lack of understanding of modern infantry combat?)

I think many issues ultimately boil down to interface failures, which again is *usually* a lack of developer initiative to complete the interface and make it as friendly and intuitive as possible. I honestly don't think this Scott fellow has played this game, otherwise he wouldn't need people to point out stuff to him. Likewise he would immediately see where the interface is lacking and fix it. If you don't really understand how software is USED, you can't understand how to build the interface. Perhaps he should call up Jim Lunsford and Major Holdridge and they could give him some pointers?

 

[Kurt Stevens]

I have suggested to Scott that the map.exe from ADC2 be made available to POA2 owners at no cost. For those unfamiliar with how ADC2 works, let me explain.

I think this is a great idea and one that would build some good will towad HPS. It wont make any difference though unless the glaring problems have been fixed. I purchased POA2 on release day and had high hopes for it. Now though, I have almost written it off. If things dont turn around soon it will probably get shelved for good. Thats a shame because it had great potential. I have to say I agree that we arent being told the whole story about its releae. How many years was this game in development? 4 or 5? You cant tell me that these glaring errors wouldnt be obvious to anyone testing the game. Somethings I can forgive but Helo's that wont move? Come on now thats pretty poor. I dont think we are getting the same game the Air Force got. Just my two cents.....

 

[Old&Slow]

My 2 cents

At the risk of being call a POA2 Fanboy I`d like to make a few observations on the up thread posts.

First I will say I`m as unhappy as anyone with the major problems the Game now has, which IMO render it unplayable.

Also I`m no Dev, so much of what I`m going to say may be all wet.

A little history.

POA2 has been announced to be " in development" for at least 10 years. No one here knows when it was actually started, but if we assume it was, at the start, built around Win 3.1, and then Win 98, and if we assume Scott is an honorable man, which I believe he is, then many of the problems might be attributeable to the fact it`s now running ( by us ) on XP and ME, and the AF _may_ be running it on WIN 98, or even specified that as the OS. This may account for why it works for the AF, but not us...perhaps.

As far as the Inf. model, well........while it may not be ideal, I think once the Dev commits to modeling each individual weapons effect, there is no way to combine SAW`s, M16`s and the Grenadiers into one firing - receiving fire unit/marker without having linked CRAY`s to run it :cheeky: I agree that was overreaching and probably a huge mistake, but it`s done.

It seems there was an attempt in the game design to combine a individual man/Tank-APC ASL model, with a tactical Company-Platoon level game , all overlayed by a large opperational level game. A great idea !...if it can be made to work !! The Jury will be out on that one for sometime methinks... :cheeky:

Last , I would have to say that I prefer to think that the mistakes of Scott and the HPS guys are more errors of omission ( bad in house testing procedures, poor communcations between the Devs and the scenario makers, a basic misunderstanding of the differient OS, thinking one quick major post release patch fixes all, Rushing it out,etc.) then errors of Commission, i.e. knowly selling a completely broken product that will never work.

Just my 2 cents.....

 

[Kammak]

Just one comment Old&Slow - regarding the "Blame it XP" thing - I've only played it on Win98 and have had nothing but trouble too. The XP thing is just hooie. Win98 has just as many C++ errors and GPFs/CTDs as any other OS this, ahem, product, is run on.