[Seaboy]

Deamon - that guest post was Seaboy - not sure why my name is not showing. I tried to access some of the pics from the old 93 game I mentioned, but Anglefire is not working as far as that goes for the moment - I can't even get into my album. But much of that 93 story was mutated and transposed into several DOOM wads in late 94 and early 95. Those are here at the old relic remains of a now defunk UFO site I used to run:
http://www.angelfire.com/co4/kivatraveler/page13.html

Anglefire is nothing but trouble these days - I need to find a new location.

ALSO, I sent you the reply and address. I likely will not be around here for a while since I have a good deal of work coming up in the next weeks. But I'll check back in here by August.

[Deamon]

[Floater]

[Deamon]

This is one hell of a story. Thanks for the very interesting insights Seaboy. It's always good to hear some experiance from others.

[Deamon]

[Deamon]

[Seaboy]

"Have you ever thought to get involved with it again ? Or was the disapointment to big ? "

There really was no disappointment at the time. In 93-94 everything was still looking up, the internet opened up and that was a new adventure. But I did learn one thing - I had to quit being a perfectionist. The game failed because it was late. It was late because I convinced the others that it should be the most we could build (for the time). They just wanted a flat 2d game, but I wanted it to be a 3d emulator (not real 3d). Also I went wild when it came to designing a security system - and my first wish had been to make the whole game shareware with a software key that would unlock the whole game to paying customers. But by the time the game reached 12 megs in size that idea went out the door - still we had wasted a great deal of time.

So my one suggestion to you guys is don't bite off more than you can chew. Keep it real. Find a way to get something out of your sim before too much time passes.

QuickC? Actually the version was 2.5, it was just a light C platform that was very easy to work with that Microsoft quit supporting back around 92 0r 93. The reason we used it and the PDS (Professional Development System 7.0) was because both had super friendly editor support. As I recall the hot ticket back in 92 was Borland C++ 2.0. I still have a copy of that around here somewhere. But the trouble with that Borland (besides crappy written documantation) was that the editor was just like all the others - you code and then you compile and then you find your errors. So one either does alot of compliling, or a lot of debugging. The platforms we used caught many of our errors right up front as we typed. That meant less debugging. And before the world wide web days, using snail mail, or sending files over 1400 bps (not Kbps) modems, with one guy in another state, it was important to keep debugging to a minimum.

But as for your sim, I can't see how the market will sink your U-1. I don't think there are too many game companies out there ready to flood the market with real to life WWI sub sims.

I also get the feeling that you are not making this sim for money, it seems more like a labor of personal interest and love. That being the case, I don't see the market getting in your way at all.

If you just wanted to make money, I'd suggest making a line of US Civil War Ironclads. Easy to build, simple designs, and in the USA Civil War things like that would sell like hotcakes. You could even throw in the Confederate submarine the Hunley. Again extremely simple (its forward balast tank was open to the crew area - likely why it sunk). I know the Monitor and Virginia pounded on one another to no effect, but that was only because the Monitor had stupidly only brought along canon balls rather than shaped shells that were available. Many more were built in that war on both sides and their main job was shelling forts.

But you see, there I go - suggesting MISSION CREEP to you. That's how good projects get delayed and sunk, always adding in too much and another new list of objectives.

[Razman23]

[Deamon]

[Deamon]

[Deamon]

Seaboy, you told me that you are an Ironclad fan, i'm woundering what are you more into, Ironclads or U-Boats ?

[Guest]

OLD GENERALS. That was indeed one of the main problems with WWI and many of the earlier wars. One of the main troubles with all military forces when they fight wars, is the tendancy to attempt to refight that last war in the present war. In the case of WWI all the forces (both sides) went into battle thinking that they were about to refight the Franco-Prussian War of the early 1870s. Of course weaponry had greatly advanced since the 1871, but many of the generals, who had taken part in the Franco-Prussian War, were fixated on re-playing that old war. In wars with decisive outcomes its usually just one side that tries to fight the last war, while the other side trys to fight a new war. An example of this would be the German panzer tactics and Blitzkrieg method used against France and Britain in 1940. In that fight the Brits and French actually were attempting to fight WWI all over again - while the Germans were trying to fight WWII. Hence the quick decisive outcome.

The American Civil War began slowly because both sides were trying to refight the US-Mexican War of 1846-48 all over again. Actually most older wars tended to always attempt this bad habit. The reason they did this was because in the old days governments did not maintain scientific-military establishments. Instead they merely relied on old war-horses (hero generals) who had won the last war. These old generals usually aged to near the point of senility - and even though younger men - in their 40s and 50s would take over as the new war began - they were all schooled in an establishment controlled by aged generals. Case in point: Winfield Scott - fought in the War of 1812, the Blackhawk War, the Seminole Wars, the Mexican-American War, and the War for Southern Independence (American Civil War). You see my point.

History is filled with outstanding generals - but nearly all of them are young men who somehow evade the controlling hand of the older military bureaucracy of their age. It was not an accident that the conquests of Alexander the Great were made by such a young man. Few people today realize that it was Alexander's move to add mounted archers to his army that gave him the edge he needed. His old Greek generals were always complaining about the Asian innovations that Alexander was adopting - not only in dress, but in many other areas as well. Mounted Archery was an Asian tactic. Because he was very young, and a king, he could push aside the old habits of these old Greek generals.

Napoleon Bonaparte was quite young when he came to absolute power and he not only reformed the military along new lines, but the whole government too.

Adolf Hitler - though not a great general - being himself an outsider to the old Prussian General class, was able to break apart that old bureaucracy and allow the revolutionary ideas of the new panzer generals to take precedence. But in no way would I compare Hitler himself to other great leaders or generals. Napoleon Bonaparte would never have halted his land forces outside of Dunkirk on the hope that dive bombers could destroy the British Army.

Sometimes new ideas in warfare can become the orthodox mind-dulling menace. In this case a new idea that worked out well at the beginning of a war, can become the obsolete method near the end of the war. In this case generals may be caught trying to refight the beginning of the war near the end of the war. Bad mistake. Case in point: German Russian front 1940s. Panzer forces were great at Blitzkrieg attacks, but they were not very effective at holding and defending static fronts. Once the Allies and Russians had adopted the Blitzkrieg tactic themselves, it was time ofr Germany to come up with something NEW. Or even something OLD. Sometimes something old - but revamped - can be something new. Case in point: Russia's WWI tactic at Kursk, but modified to include defense in depth. Actually there was one old WWI German general who tried this Kursk tactic south east of Berlin - I forget the exact when, and the name of the guy - it would take a while to look it up. But he tried it and it stopped the Soviet Shock armies in their tracks. So sometimes something old but updated can be something new and effective.

Wars require great flexibility of thought, but military bureaucracies tend to be the LEAST flexible of all bureaucracies. Mainly because on the whole - during peace time - the brightest minds of civilization avoid the military and the duller mind tend to gravitate to it. I am speaking of a percentage basis. Yes, bright minds enter the military - but at a lower rate than say the field of science. Likewise those who enter the military tend to be men who yearn for yesteryear, tradition, and so forth. Avant-Guard type thinkers tend to gravitate toward science, arts, and so forth. The result is something like Winfield Scott - a leader who fought in 1812 and still leads in 1861.

[Guest]

Another tendancy of old war-horse leadership is to keep trying the same tactic over and over but with increasing resources committed to the endevor. For example, there are two ways to increase the speed of an old steam ship - (1) design a more effective engine or hull, or (2) pour on more coal into the old steam engine. The method of the old-war-horse mindset is to just keep throwing in more coal into the boilers of the old steam engine. IF the first attack was mowed down by machineguns, well make the next attack larger. If 2000 rounds of artillery didn't break the trench lines the first time, then try 12,000 rounds next time. If 250,000 troops didn't break the North Vietnamese forces, then bring in 500,000 troops.

Sometimes this old war-horse Blugon-method works if the leadership has near unlimited resources - the old Celtic/Saxon method of slug it out face to face - like two Rams on a mountain side. The Russian attacks against Germany usually took this line. If 5 t-34s can't do it - then send in 20. If they don't make it, then send in 100. Stalin didn't have to worry about public opinion and he had a vast human pool to call upon.

[Deamon]

[Deamon]