Stopping Lend-Lease

[Pang Bingxun]

And now the earlier 4 aggregates has changed to 10 aggregates? Could you (and your code) please be less confusing? Thank you. This would all have been much, much simpler if you had not used aggregates but stayed with existing map and used SEA AREAS.

In addition to the old option of the 4 aggregates there is a second option of 10 aggregates that for the relevant part are identical to sea areas, so missioning for sea areas will work fine:

 

[Commander666]

"A picture is worth a thousand words."

1) How many fleets must be on station in each sea area?

2) Is this in effect for v1.09. If so, why didn't you say so before? This is total news from everything you stated earlier.

Actually it looks like you took my suggestion to set it up as to map sea zones. Except you got some problems still:

• #3 is not one sea AREA and should be divided as to The Hebrides and Faroes Gap AREAS.
• #4 is NOT a problem, just commenting that glad you finally included the whole area. Yes, now subs can mission. Except what if 2 wolf packs clump in same sea zone when L-L fires? That will not work. So hopefully with 10 sea AREAS it is now only 1 fleet needed per sea area.
• #8 is wrong to be including part of the Bay of Biscay AREA. Why can't you do what is simple and STICK WITH THE MAP SEA AREAS?

There are half a dozen good reasons why you should.

 

[Commander666]

There are 3 routes, all of them would need to be blocked.

As regards blocking L-L to Soviet Union, your conditions are not good game design, IMO..

Again, you should stop putting double fleets in same sea area (i that is want you are doing). But if you have decided that 5 fleets will be the requirement, then the proper stipulation is:

One fleet 24/7 in all of the five following SEA AREAS changed from your set-up to make sense both as regards playing U-boats and history.

ROUTE 1 Murmansk: Norwegian Sea and Barents Sea AREAS = 2 fleets total in 2 areas.

Route 2 Vladivostok: Sea of Japan. Actually, it is not fair this only requires one fleet, and should increase to also need fleet in Sea of Okhotsk (either West or South AREAS). Would be 2 fleets total.

Route 3 Tehran: Persian Gulf and North Arabian Sea AREAS = 2 fleets total in 2 areas.

BASICALLY, it is very simple if the correct condition is applied to map world wide. That condition is that "Any ONE fleet of 3 or more units - if on station or patrolling in a sea AREA -will block lend lease going thru that sea area." Now it simply just needs a requirement of how many SEA AREAS need blocking.

As you need to include The Hebrides for the UK, that would be 11, which is far too many. At most it should be 8 which needs 24 sub flotillas plus 24 more for rotation = 48 (plus extra if any repairing).

Suggest you go back to the list of eight I supplied earlier. Basically, use numbers 1-7 in your map and The Hebrides becomes 8. Your map 9+10 are too far south for L-L from USA, and I exclude Cape Finisterre because traffic to and from your map 5, 6 + 7 when based at Brest already results in Cape Finisterre getting very much u-boat hunting at East Celtic Shelf province.

AS REGARDS Soviet Union, why would they need less units doing blockade - especially with 3 different routes? Your rules make no sense, I think. SU should be increased to include additionally East North Sea AREA for the Murmansk route, and BOTH Sea of Okhotsk (south and west) AREAS for the eastern route.

So it properly would be 8 fleets needed on station 24/7 to block the UK L-L and another 8 fleets to block SU L-L. In short, nearly impossible to do both, as it should be.

BTW, the AI finally bombed my subs on station off Norwich. I took damage and that 1 action immediately broke the blockade. Now I organizing FTRs based to Amsterdam to try and keep my subs in place.

 

[Pang Bingxun]

1) How many fleets must be on station in each sea area?

In one sea zone of the aggregate there needs to be one fleet of size 3+. So a total of 30 naval divisions are needed to keep up the blockade and much more to keep this number up where it counts.

2) Is this in effect for v1.09.

It is not. I created the code yesterday.

#3 is not one sea AREA and should be divided as to The Hebrides and Faroes Gap AREAS.

The Hebrides are just 2 provinces. I feel this is to small for an aggregate, so that would be bad work on my part. Still missioning subs on one of those sea areas will work.

#8 is wrong to be including part of the Bay of Biscay AREA. Why can't you do what is simple and STICK WITH THE MAP SEA AREAS?

The sea areas are not a good match for what makes sense, so i included what should have been included. missioning subs on the sea area Cape Finisterre does suffice.

AS REGARDS Soviet Union, why would they need less units doing blockade - especially with 3 different routes? Your rules make no sense, I think. SU should be increased to include additionally East North Sea AREA for the Murmansk route, and BOTH Sea of Okhotsk (south and west) AREAS for the eastern route.

LL to the UK was larger IRL and there were more viable routes. They were just not so divided into 3 completely different parts of the largest country in the world. Effectivly stopping soviet LL will be done by taking land provinces. Similar is true about chinese LL.

 

[Commander666]

The sea areas are not a good match for what makes sense, so i included what should have been included .

You could not be more wrong. The games works very well on use of the existing sea AREAS and sea REGIONS as regards how fleets and aircraft operate. You introducing a mis-matching overlay of "aggregates" is the dumbest game design I have witnessed in AoD. If you wish to persist with your independent, arbitrary and conflicting view of all the really good design put into AoD by countless others that worked cooperatively... then do so on your own.

I don't want anything more to do with your very incorrect changing of AoD to now be mixing up sea AREAS with your mathematical nonsense of "aggregates".

IF YOU ever decide to see the wisdom of my advice, then we can continue this discussion to help you build a sensible system for the conditions to stop Lend-lease.

Have a nice day.

 

[Pang Bingxun]

I divided the aggregate number 3 into aggregates identical to The Hebrides and to Faroes Gap. I also cut off the former aggregates 9 and 10 near portugal. So now there are only 9 aggregates and short of the one for Cape Finisterre + East Biscaya Basin they are identical to sea areas. I consider making the province of East Biscaya Basin part of the sea area Cape Finisterre. This seems more natural than cutting East Biscaya Basin out of it.

 

[Commander666]

You don't seem to get the point. A perfectly good system of sea areas has been designed and is part of the game already. Importantly, it allows fleets to use missions to patrol that.

Your re-arrangement does not allow patrolling of any aggregates if they vary from the sea zone it replaces.

I consider making the province of East Biscaya Basin part of the sea area Cape Finisterre. This seems more natural than cutting East Biscaya Basin out of it.

Yah, just go ahead and mess up the game by what you are doing. Any sub patrolling can not possibly patrol your aggregation because it can only patrol Cape Finisterre area, or Biscayan area, or a huge sea region. It is impossible to patrol Cape Finisterre Area and one extra province in the Biscayan Basin.

There is nothing natural about it.... only a huge bewilderment that you can not follow any good advice from me.

Why am I surprised? You couldn't even cooperate to pull off a tiny project to do the map for Soviet liberated nations. Sent me a PM and stated it would be OK if I published it. Then filled up the rest of PM with reasons why we should do a changed project as per your idea... or just delay until a future date that might never happen. You totally missed the boat on that one.

We already discussed this "sea aggregates" idea to death. You just keep juggling it. With some hope you might arrive at what every player already has when they go to Area Map Mode.

 

[Pang Bingxun]

Few sets ago i had completed the current solution for blocking LL to UK. One fleet of 3 naval divisions each would be needed in one of the provinces of each of the 9 following aggregates:

1: English Channel
2: West North Sea
3: The Hebrides
4: Faroes Gap
5: Irish Sea
6: Irish West Coast
7: North Atlantic
8: Western Approaches
9: Cape Finisterre including East Biscaya Basin

In 1.11 those are sea areas:

 

[Commander666]

Few sets ago i had completed the current solution for blocking LL to UK.

So you finally took my advice and changed it to match to AoD's Sea Zones.

But your claim is very wrong. The idea is mine and - after hounding you harder and harder for months- you have finally managed to give up more of your incorrect original design. READ THE THREAD FROM BEGINNING TO LEARN:

• Your idea of 2 fleets per aggregates I opposed for many reasons, and finally you accepted my idea to make it 1 fleet per sea area.
• You finally stopped trying to force The Hebrides sea area to be an "aggregate" made out of bits of different Sea Areas.
• You stopped having bits of other sea areas joined to other sea areas because of your ill thought out earlier "mixed up aggregates" (example: nothing in the Bay of Biscay is attached to any aggregate now).

So, aside from you continuing to use a nonsense term like "aggregates" instead of the correct term SEA AREA as per map mode you are using, it seems Ok now - provided "Mouth of Shannon" (immediately south of Ireland, darker shade) is properly included in what is " #5" because that is the Irish Sea Area which includes Mouth of Shannon.

...i had completed the current solution...

I consider this to be nothing less than stealing somebody's idea, and denying proper credit for my original idea.

I had stated back in Post #5

The proper requirement to stop lend-lease is "Just one fleet (of 3 units minimum) 24/7 in all of the following sea AREAS: English Channel, Irish West Coast, The Hebrides, Faroes Gap, Irish Sea, Cape Finisterre, Western Approaches, and North Atlantic.

You have an extra area with the West North Sea area which exceeds the total fleets you and I originally agreed was the right number. By including the West North Sea - which includes next door to Scapa Flow - as a place that U-boats must patrol to stop Lend-Lease is ahistoric, AFAIK, and probably suicidal as the subs would regularly pass in front of Scapa Flow. You should delete #2.

Heck, it took months of arguing with you to get you to finally get it right (subject to "Mouth of the Shannon" and deleting #2 is kind of optional). What specific areas need patrolling doesn't really matter that much. What matters most is that you stop wrecking the AoD existing system of Sea Areas, or how players relate to that and how they can mission their fleets to operate as to Sea Areas and still fulfill the Stop L-L requirements.

After all that you state, "i had completed the current solution". I think that is shameful. If you had true grit - then "a few sets ago" you could have sent me a PM with this map and asked for my final opinion if it was now correct or not. To be clear - it still seems not to be, and Mouth of the Shannon must be properly included.

I am shocked by your claim indicating it is, or ever was, your idea or solution. I request you post a correction and give credit to Commander666 for the solution to how L-L now operates correctly. You finally fully took my advice. Failure to post correction may result in my elevating issue to Moderators depending on just what Forum rules state about claiming other people's ideas.


And just so we got your original "aggregate idea" - which I relentlessly criticized until you finally saw the light - I'll repost that here. View attachment 340105 That attachment already reflects some changes in your earlier idea on account of some of my advice you accepted by then. If anybody wishes to study who's idea it was what Pang has now presented (and forms part of v1.11) then please read posts 6, 8, 22, 25 and 26.

YOU SHOULD ALSO INSURE THAT I AM CREDITED IN THE final credits for v1.11 on account of my contribution - which was the idea to simplify and change it vey much from what you first had put in the new version - which was 2 fleets/aggregate (and many of the aggregates not Sea Areas at all).

Pang, you should have been forth right, and admitted that the current solution you added to V1.11 is my idea. The only thing different is you are still incorrectly using the term "aggregates" instead of the AoD Sea Areas you have now so obviously followed... and which I debated with you for so long to do it that way so you would not destroy Germany's game play for U-boats.

 

[ifail]

What if you make a floatila of sub convoy on each area aorund britain (1-4) and the SOV AI get an event blockades hampers lendlease and they get like 1-5 random dissent hit this will slow down thier production (maybe if the event hits every 3 months)

 

[Commander666]

To block Lend-lease to the SU, it needs fleets of 3 minimum in various other "aggregates" that Pang set up around Vladivostok, near Karachi, and in the White Sea (more or less). I don't know the details since Pang just changes his mind without admitting to me that my idea is now adopted. I did have some criticisms of how he had set it up earlier for blocking SU, but - until any set up follows the existing AoD Areas - discussion with Pang on details is meaningless.

What if you make a floatila of sub convoy on each area aorund britain (1-4)...

Will not work. It needs one fleet in all Sea Areas 1-9 to be there when UK lend-lease event fires (or shipment will pass). It is specific only to UK, and none of those areas 1-9 affects SU lend-lease. For that you need block White Sea and Murmansk, Gulf of Persia, and Vladivostok (more or less, precise details I don't know).

 

[Commander666]

In 1.11 those are sea areas:

You are so frustratingly misleading/confusing. Those 9 Sea Areas have always been shaped like that in all versions before 1.11 They ALWAYS were sea areas. The sea area shapes have not changed.

What are you really trying to say? That in V1.11 you have finally dropped the ridiculous reference of calling Sea Areas "aggregates"? Because that is the only thing that could have changed, AFAIK.

Color is a different matter. Did you change the colors of some sea areas? I hope you can see the mess that still exists with the current color set up. If colors were changed, the change is very wanting. There still is not any clear visual difference between English Channel and Irish Sea.

a) Irish Sea could be blue - not same color as English Chanel
b) Portuguese Coast needs to be more different from the adjacent Western Approaches #8 because a ship in the Portuguese Coast will change the province color to look almost exactly like Western Approaches. Suggest doing Portuguese Coast blue.

 

[Pang Bingxun]

You are so frustratingly misleading/confusing. Those 9 Sea Areas have always been shaped like that in all versions before 1.11 They ALWAYS were sea areas. The sea area shapes have not changed.

They have changed as i implied at march the 17th.

After all that you state, "i had completed the current solution". I think that is shameful. If you had true grit - then "a few sets ago" you could have sent me a PM with this map and asked for my final opinion if it was now correct or not.

I considered posting the map back in march, but your continuity in discrediting and insulting me makes this forum a much less pleasent place than it could be if you adopted civil manners instead of harassing me.

On march the 17th i had implemented the current solution, shortly thereafter you opposed the current solution which would imply that it is not your idea.

So to set the record strait: You wished for a solution that works fine with missioning on sea areas. I implemented this, the first and fully functional draft was the solution described in the map from february the 28th.

The second draft is the current solution. I also included East Biscaya Basin into Cape Finisterre so that aggregates in the event do no longer differ from sea areas for the sake of simplicity.

The older solution from 1.09 where one must have a total of 8 fleet in 4 aggregates of the provinces surrounding the UK and 2 provinces in each aggregate blocked is still in place. The solution of 9 aggregates is just an additional option to met your wish.

 

[Commander666]

I considered posting the map back in march, but your continuity in discrediting and insulting me makes this forum a much less pleasent place than it could be if you adopted civil manners instead of harassing me.

I have neither insulted you nor harassed you in this thread. If you have issues in other threads, you should say so there; and not make a bogus case of Forum being a much less pleasant place because of my proper criticisms of specific game changes you have made, or are discussing making. IMO, I have been extremely civil in the thread, and continue to be so. Blaming me for your failure to not be more forth coming with information as in not posting a map back in March is hardly fair.

 

[Commander666]

They have changed as i implied at march the 17th.

Here you go again with confusing statements that appear to twist what I had stated. Who is "they"?
The quote of mine you reply to is:

You are so frustratingly misleading/confusing. Those 9 Sea Areas have always been shaped like that in all versions before 1.11 They ALWAYS were sea areas. The sea area shapes have not changed.

I discuss "sea areas" and use "those" and "they" to clearly relate to sea areas only.

But you twist this crystal clear use of the word "they" by me when you reference to your March 17 Post #26 :

I divided the aggregate number 3 into aggregates identical to The Hebrides and to Faroes Gap. I also cut off the former aggregates 9 and 10 near portugal. So now there are only 9 aggregates and short of the one for Cape Finisterre + East Biscaya Basin they are identical to sea areas. I consider making the province of East Biscaya Basin part of the sea area Cape Finisterre. This seems more natural than cutting East Biscaya Basin out of it.

In the above you relate to "aggregates" 4 times and sea zones twice. But when you now write "They have changed as i implied at march the 17th" then what the heck are you even talking about?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

You have from the start of this thread consistently confused what you did, or changed, or plan to implement because there is this "double identity" happening - the clear SEA AREAS that every player knows and readers can relate to; ... .... .... and this "ghosting" of Pang Bingxun's confusing "aggregates" that can be anything as to however you might think at the moment - merging them, separating them, adding a province from this sea area to that sea area, or however you claim... whatever. It is totally ridiculous!

Why are you making everything so utterly confusing? It is extremely simple - there are only sea areas, and all provinces in a sea area belong to that area only, and never to any other. All missioning of ships to a sea area can only ever have ship's in that sea area... and not any extra province that you want to include from another sea area to make some sort of Frankenstein Aggregate.

So to set the record strait: You wished for a solution that works fine with missioning on sea areas. I implemented this, the first and fully functional draft was the solution described in the map from february the 28th.

Missioning on sea areas is essential. But "NO, you did not implement that" The map of February 28th (Post #21) has several irregularities with sea areas combined and others cut up into senseless aggregates that don't exist on the map in those shapes. Look at post 21 and see the fallacy in your statement that I wished for that:

• Aggregate #3 combines 2 sea areas (Faroes Gap and The Hebrides)
• Aggregate #8 combines 2 sea areas (Cape Finistere and Bay of Biscay)

Your aggregates do not "work fine with missioning on sea areas" because you don't even have sea areas - but bits of different sea areas to form nonsense aggregates.

WHY DO YOU DO SUCH A DELIBERATE CONFULUTED DESIGN instead of just going with the existing Sea Areas?

The second draft is the current solution. I also included East Biscaya Basin into Cape Finisterre so that aggregates in the event do no longer differ from sea areas for the sake of simplicity.

Are you and I on the same planet, Pang? The sea areas are Cape Finistere (grey) and Bay of Biscay (green). How can including part of green into the grey possibly "no longer differ from sea areas" as you unbelievably claim. Of course they differ! The grey is bigger by 1 green, and the green is smaller.

Finally, you make the incredible claim that this chop-chop sushi of sea zones and the resultant different shapes is somehow supposed to be for the sake of simplicity. Come on Pang... like get real... even you know that the mixed up mess you have created with your changes in "aggregates" is anything but simple. Why is it so difficult for you to see that what truly is simple is the existing map with it already created sea zones, and simply follow that?

The older solution from 1.09 where one must have a total of 8 fleet in 4 aggregates of the provinces surrounding the UK and 2 provinces in each aggregate blocked is still in place. The solution of 9 aggregates is just an additional option to met your wish.

Well, now you throw in the real killer. As I interpret the above it indicates that there are two different systems operating - each with differing aggregates. That should now guarantee total confusion. If anybody asks, how does one even start to explain how it works.? You deserve an award for the single most confused game change ever done in any version.

The solution of 9 aggregates is just an additional option to met your wish.

This is either a lie or you must be joking. I never wished for aggregates, nor for 9 of anything, but only 8 SEA AREAS which I have listed most clearly several times.


IN CONCLUSION, what you are doing in this thread amounts to deliberately confusing the issue, is not making playing subs to stop L-L viable, and is just creating frustration because of your insistence on meaningless parallel terms of reference wrongly applied to coding changes to damage AoD naval warfare. You should be stopped from making this "mistake" to AoD. To clarify my earlier, now that I better understand that two different aggregates systems seem to exist for the conditions to stop L-L, I withdraw all claims that any of the "Frankenstein Rules" you created bears my handiwork. It doesn't.

I wonder when you are going to get cooperative, and do the correct and simple thing which is most efficient and works perfectly for players using their fleets? That would be simply stating "1 fleet must be in each of 8 sea areas which are English Channel. Irish Sea, The Hebrides, Faroes Gap, Irish West Coast. North Atlantic and Cape Finisterre". Simple enough, isn't it?

I would even concede including West North Sea area as a good player of subs can deal with the threat at Scapa Flow. But you need to concede the confusing "aggregates" and use and discuss as to what the game designers gave you - a beautiful and very well functioning system of Sea Areas.

Let's see, Pang Bingxun, if you are capable of doing that? We could even share the credit then. But mostly it would fix the "rule to Stop Lend-Lease" so people can enjoy playing that in 1.11

 

[Pang Bingxun]

Here you go again with confusing statements that appear to twist what I had stated. Who is "they"?

The sea areas have changed as implied at march the 17th. East Biscaya Basin is now Part of Cape Finistere. Just compare the 2 maps. It really is quite simple.

Missioning on sea areas is essential. But "NO, you did not implement that"

Yes, i did. It was designed so that missioning on areas would allow to block LL. You not acknowledging this fact does not change the fact.

Are you and I on the same planet, Pang?

Maybe, but apparently not in the same reality because yours differs so much from mine.

This is either a lie or you must be joking.

Neither. The change was motivated by your wish, but i interpreted it in a manner that i considered sensible. I am not a vegetable.

Technically it needs to be aggregates, whether they are identical to sea areas or not.

But mostly it would fix the "rule to Stop Lend-Lease" so people can enjoy playing that in 1.11

That worked fine before 1.11 and did not need any fixing.

Let's see, Pang Bingxun, if you are capable of doing that?

And again you are discussing me instead of AoD.

 

[Commander666]

So, let me get this straight. In 1.11 you actually changed the Cape Finisterre Sea Area so that it now comprises 5 sea provinces instead of the 4 it always had previously? Is that not a hard coded change?

I sure wish you had said so clearly instead of presenting a "doctored map" which you called "aggregates" so leading me to think you had only done an aggregate using parts from various sea zones (as you have been doing all along). Your unannounced major change in basic AoD map was not recognized by either the colors (which I thought you doctored) or minor mention of "In 1.11 those are sea areas". At the very least you could have stated in the post clearly and indicated (versus implied) that with 1.11 the previous sea area of Cape Finisterre now includes the province of East Biscaya Basin. Your listing of >>>9: Cape Finisterre including East Biscaya Basin<<< fails to do that because the whole post is prefaced with "the 9 following aggregates" so actually implying that the addendum at Listing 9 is a clarification that East Biscaya Basin is from a different area.

One fleet of 3 naval divisions each would be needed in one of the provinces of each of the 9 following aggregates:
9: Cape Finisterre including East Biscaya Basin

WELL, THE NEW PERMANENT CHANGE to the AoD AREA Map Mode display is interesting. On the one hand, reducing the Bay of Biscaya Sea Area and enlarging the Cape Finisterre Sea Area fits the geography better. It might improve the patrolling by fleets.... or it might decrease the patrolling by aircraft and fleets for the Cape Finisterre Sea Area because that has been expanded.

BUT ONE HAS TO ASK, "WHY WOULD ANYONE?" - especially a DEV who claims decisions need to be made about what is reasonable to fix and what isn't - launch into a work of changing AoD's original Area Map Mode display to make it fit to some idea of how he previously arranged aggregates.... .... .... instead of having just left Cape Finisterre as was, and had the rule set for stopping lend-lease simply include a 10th area that needs patrolling 24/7.... that being the Bay of Biscay sea area. I mean, with the requirement of total fleets reduced from 2 fleets/area earlier to only 1 fleet/area now... and the Naval Base of Bordeaux right in the Bay of Biscay... increasing to 30 U-boats (3 in each of 10 areas) from the earlier 27 matters hardly at all. But you instead permanently changed the sizes of the two sea areas ... which affects how air patrolling works there, and more which you didn't analyze or consider.

WOW! I have no words to describe your action. I have no words because this Forum forbids me using them.

But, for sure, Pang Bingxun, I will consider the work you did to contort the rules for stopping Lend-Lease as the most incredible example of the very worst possible game design that I can imagine. It remains unbelievable to me that anybody could so convolute what was so simple to achieve had they simply followed what the game design showed them. The whole rule set for stopping lend lease amounts to ONE simple sentence - if you do it properly. But you chopped and chipped at numerous SEA AREAS, you added and subtracted bits from here and there. That done, you then decided to change the world map to better fit all the chopping and chipping you'd done. Apparently still not satisfied, I suppose you next got out some paint cans and splashed those about the Atlantic to see if maybe that would improve the look of things.

So, I like to present you with this award for "Most deserved mention of any DEV change to AoD".
AWARD BELOW:
... ...

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

LET'S LOOK AT THE OTHER SIDE:

You did all this technical work to change the Map Mode display. But in the midst of that you never saw the very serious problem that has always existed in AoD as regards English Channel and Irish Sea having identical colors. The 2 sea areas always needed to have different colors to separate them, but you couldn't see that? Seems you really can't see the bigger picture as somebody else said about you. I agree.

HOWEVER - INCREDIBLY - you (or somebody) have changed the colors of many other sea areas including Faroes Cap, Cape Finisterre, Western Approaches and Portuguese Coast. It might be that these color changes happened in 1.10 That doesn't change the fact that the new color scheme is vastly inferior to what existed before because now the latter two sea zones are nearly identical; and a friendly ship in the Portuguese Coast will lighten the sea province it is in and make it appear the ship's location is part of Western Approaches. Again, my civil words can not find the words to express such poor game changes - especially when all that wasted work results in what really needed fixing (separating the Irish Sea and English Channel by giving them different colors) wasn't even touched. [This icon reads "Oops!"]

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Technically it needs to be aggregates, whether they are identical to sea areas or not.

I know that the code groups in the files are aggregates. But the changed Area Map Mode is , and always will be, SEA AREAS. You should learn to distinguish between the two different things when you post.

And again you are discussing me instead of AoD.

No, I was asking a question if Pang Bingxun was capable of compromising on the proposal I had made just before the snippet you have quoted. And you have given me your answer with the entirety of your above post.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

In addition to the old option of the 4 aggregates there is a second option of 10 aggregates that for the relevant part are identical to sea areas, so missioning for sea areas will work fine:

Except that the "10 aggregates" is now actually just 9 and played on a changed Area Map Mode. Or is that a 3rd option for the "rule sets" pertaining to stopping L-L? Could we maybe make it a little more confusing just to stymie the newbies ?

 

[Commander666]

Went to my computer this morning and was so disappointed that I had not received any reply from Pang.

Well, as I often will do if nobody has replied, I next read yet another time all I had written, corrected a typo, and then re-considered the additional paragraphs that had formed part of the draft for above post - but were deleted when I decided to go with the shorter version which is presented.

You know, it really bothers me that I started this thread to learn what Pang had done to AoD in regards to the excellent idea that had been suggested several times in Forum to find a way that German U-boats could attempt to stop Lend-Lease (L-L). While it took a few posts until Pang properly expressed what the very complex rule set was, eventually it was made clear. That rule set was that certain sea areas (sometimes incomplete, or with bits from other sea areas, or combined) formed a bunch of "aggregates" and each aggregate needed 2 fleets of 3 units each to sit there basically 24/7. They had to sit there because missioning according to AoD system of Area Map Mode would result in the subs possibly finding themselves in that one province of a sea area which was excluded from any aggregate, or the 2 fleets clump together and so not meet the requirement that each aggregate needed 2 provinces to be occupied when L-L event fired in order to block it.

With the best of intentions and without any prejudice, I took my existing game as Germany and ordered the subs to reform and position as needed to fully test the rule set pertaining to "Pang's aggregates". I reported that somewhere, but basically - after about a year of game time - it had become so intolerably boring managing all these "lame ducks" sitting about the British Isles, that I returned to normal U-boat tactics just to stop the extremely boring play. The effort had gotten very few convoys and nearly no RN sunk, but had succeeded in not a single L-L getting through. Unfortunately, the latter really doesn't matter because the progressive changes in AoD since v1.08 to give countries ever more infrastructure has so massively changed the total world resource situation that now it seems impossible to get UK out of vital resources even if all convoys were sunk. The British Isles - with improved infrastructure - produces about 50 rares daily. And given how much the UK can now stockpile before the U-boats can sink all its convoys, USA sending lend-lease is probably not going to impact on any resource as there probably won't be any resource stockpile that is close to depleting.

But in my optimism I thought, "If I could get Pang to change the rule set to state that it only needs 1 wolf pack in each of 8-10 sea areas" ...and the aggregates were exactly complete sea areas... then the subs could mission normally to stop the boredom and - hopefully - improve the convoy hits and sinking of the RN.

So started Pang's cooperation to do something about my request. Well, that's appreciated. But how he went about it, challenging me at every stage regarding him not creating all aggregates to match correctly to the map's SEA AREAS - and how difficult it was to get him to fix them - was not appreciated, and started the dialogue we got to. In the end there still remained an aggregate that he had created from including all of Cape Finisterre sea area and one province - East Bicaya Basin - from another sea area (Bay of Biscay).

That, I thought, was frankly silly... and I wrote so colorfully. The end of the story is that finally Pang decided to change the Sea Areas themselves by permanently moving East Biscaya Basin province into the Cape Finisterre Sea Area so now the code/file aggregate for that matches the new game display Sea Area, and subs can mission properly.

The ridiculousness of doing that change (which maybe needed hard coding?) compared to just leaving the sea areas as was - and simply adding another aggregate for the Bay of Bicay that subs could patrol if Pang thought including East Biscaya Basin province was necessary - can not be overstated.

It all amounted to a massive amount of resistance from Pang to simply go to any lengths to not accept somebody's better idea. That better idea - the gist of the suggestion I had given Pang - was so simple: "Do one fleet per sea area and pick 8-10 sea areas that need patrolling to stop lend-lease". And what did we get instead? We got instead a completely changed Atlantic Ocean with two Sea Areas altered and numerous color changes that have removed one earlier color conflict in the North Sea while creating a new color conflict in the Iberian Sea and - unbelievably - ignoring the long standing major color conflict between English Channel and the Irish Sea.

My criticism is about how Pang wrongly handled the DEV part of the issue. I don't think any DEV should do DEV work quite like how things were handled. And therein comes the reason for this "2nd post". I want to make it clear that all my criticisms that related to Pang as a DEV are not in any way directed towards any other DEVs. In fact, I wish I had earlier thought of the idea how to distinguish between the DEV-related work of Pang Bingxun and the work of all other DEVs.

I think it would have been better if I had called to the game development work Pang Bingxun did regarding "stopping L-L" not as "DEV" but reversed it to "VED".... for Very Exceptional Disaster.

Thank you, Pang Bingxun, for all your considerable time to have created this VED

 

[Pang Bingxun]

I could not care less about who voiced an idea first. What matters is that the idea fits the relevant facts and concerns.

In this thread you made one good point. Keeping the close grip on the UK can be boring, missioning on sea areas might be preferable. That idea i took to heart. The rest however seems to be of low relevance at best, but much of it is worse.

I deem it important to remain sachlich. There does not seems to be a good translation for this german term. Possible translations are sober, realistic, impersonal and objective.

You however make almost everything personal. You make many statements about me and most of them are of course wrong. There is a simple solution for that: Don't say anything about me. Just limit it to AoD. This saves us both a lot of trouble.

Changing what area a province is assigned to is one of the most simple changes in terms of implimentation. It seems save to assume that i know better what my softcoding can do than you do.

Changing the colors of areas however is something i did not do, in fact i donnot know how to do that. If you check the facts you will see that the colors of areas have remained unchanged.

View attachment 340105
View attachment 369556

 

[Commander666]

I deem it important to remain sachlich. There does not seems to be a good translation for this german term. Possible translations are sober, realistic, impersonal and objective.

English has 17 translations for " sachlich" including "hard-headed".

https://www.dict.cc/german-english/sachlich.html

You however make almost everything personal. You make many statements about me and most of them are of course wrong. There is a simple solution for that: Don't say anything about me. Just limit it to AoD. This saves us both a lot of trouble.

I haven't made personal statements about you for a long time. I only make statements about the VEDs you did to this once fine classic game. Sorry my many criticisms are causing you so much trouble. But you could have been much more cooperative to discuss game changes before you launched into them - especially when they were MAJOR changes that have affected everything about the game. Even in this thread discussing a minor change of requirements to stop L-L you could not answer my question with helpful consideration or friendly understanding. The thread began with:

Hi Pang,
Can you please direct me to your earlier post of the details regarding which and how many sea zones around the British Isles need U-boats in them to stop the Lend-Lease? Can't find it. Thanks!

Instead of being helpful to direct me properly, you posted:

Here:

which was followed by massive amount of pasted CODE which you knew very well I could not interpret nor figure out. You could have just correctly linked me to your earlier post where you had verbalized what the conditions were, and as I had politely asked.

However, instead of complaining, I played along with your complicated answer. So the thread went the direction it did:

Commander scrutinizes the code, wrinkles his forehead, and says, "Oh yah." "Jam 2"? This is not cooking class.
Passing the info to Vice Admiral Donitz, he replies, "It means we must... ... ..."

Of course, my read of the code (which I don't really understand) had missed a huge section of other aggregates. So, after many more posts until you finally divulged all you had done, we got to the point of me posting that your game changes are a VED

Changing what area a province is assigned to is one of the most simple changes in terms of implimentation. It seems save to assume that i know better what my softcoding can do than you do.

I would not assume that since in your next statement you claim inability to change province colors - a soft code change even I can do (remember you taught me).

Changing the colors of areas however is something i did not do, in fact i donnot know how to do that.

Well Pang, you're not fooling me because even I have changed the colors of countries in my 1.09
Given what I learned there, I think to change Sea Areas you need only find where the sea areas (or aggregates or their individual provinces) are listed in the code - something I am certain you know how to do. Once there you would look for "clues" like the words "blue", "orange", "brown" or "green". That I am sure you can find. Finally you would substitute one color for another - something else I am sure you can do. FYI, this will result in changed Checksum. But Pang, let's stop the fooling around. Like you can change sea areas as to what provinces encompass a sea area so the map display is changed for Area Map Mode... but you claim you can't change the color of that Area. "Oops!" Oh my, oh my!

If you check the facts you will see that the colors of areas have remained unchanged.

I did check the facts - all the way back to v1.08, and you are wrong. More importantly, you are deliberately trying to confuse the discussion by injecting misleading information as you have done with your 2 links for v1.10 and v1.11 images.... which is not where the color change happened (as I already figured out and stated so earlier). The color changes to the Atlantic Ocean occurred going from v1.09 to v1.10. But I can't post screen shot because you'll state its on account of my different checksum. It isn't. I can post screen shot of 1.08 (with correct checksum) showing same... but you might claim that I doctored the image (as we both know I am very capable with Photoshop).

So I am not the person to disapprove your false claim that Sea Area colors were not changed. Maybe we can get the person who did it saying so.... or any neutral party using 1.09 unmodded to post a screen of Area Map Mode which would cover the Atlantic area??

But what I fear most is that you - Pang Bingxun - will go to the next level of absurd claim and state that the discussion can only be comparing 1.10 to 1.11 because all previous versions are "double or triple obsolete", and therefore discredited. You've done that type of "superiority claim" before, remember?

I could not care less about who voiced an idea first. What matters is that the idea fits the relevant facts and concerns.

I believe you as I know your earlier expressed view of "Why applaud what is good?" And I agree with your 2nd sentence. Unfortunately you failed to fit the game change that was requested to anybody's concerns except your own. Worse, you worked very deliberately to attempt a clever solution that would seem to valid you saying:

You wished for a solution that works fine with missioning on sea areas

but that solution would not at all be what I had suggested you do (since following a suggestion of mine is probably irksome to you). So instead, you again "turned the world around to contort a solution" ... instead of just following better advice; and doing the most simple thing to effect the proper solution. You did what you did.... thereby creating what I have come to call a VED

You however make almost everything personal.

Are you not making a personal statement about me now, Pang?

Yes, sometimes it indeed becomes difficult to avoid a minor personal connection between a DEV and the VED that DEV did. Exactly as in your personal quote of me. Glad I found a visible solution to separate the two different things.

Have a nice day.... and oh.... get your facts straight regarding the Atlantic Ocean sea area colors not having changed.

Maybe somebody will supply neutral info.