Don't forget the "etc."

World in Flames is the computer version of Australian Design Group classic board game. World In Flames is a highly detailed game covering the both Europe and Pacific Theaters of Operations during World War II. If you want grand strategy this game is for you.

Moderator: Shannon V. OKeets

User avatar
paulderynck
Posts: 8356
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 5:27 pm
Location: Canada

RE: Don't forget the "etc."

Post by paulderynck »

ORIGINAL: icitrom_y

Officially, every ADG module is included in MWiF with the exception of Factories in Flames (FiF, 2008 annual). It has been posted here that FiF is out of the question as it is too complex to code at this point. And, with a third of the optional rules that are in ADG-WiF (Rules as Written (RAW 7)) either not as yet implemented or will never be implemented, MWiF has already significantly diverged from ADG-WiF. That I need to use the acronym ADG-WiF says something to me.

It stopped being identical to WiF (the recognized acronym for the boardgame - no need to invent others) when the decision was made to go European scale for the entire playing surface. People all over the world play the game but use vastly differing sets and quantities of optional rules. Which of those games are already significantly diverged from WiF? MWiF allows folks to play a great many significantly diverged games of WiF.
Paul
User avatar
juntoalmar
Posts: 662
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 2:08 pm
Location: Valencia
Contact:

RE: Don't forget the "etc."

Post by juntoalmar »

Easy. If you are trying to implement a game that has “living rules” that change constantly, you can't expect to have them all implemented. Even if you do, they could change again. So, as Steve say, you have to draw a line and say “I'll do until here”. I'm a Computer Engineer myself, and I know that the very first thing that you have to do to manage a project is to lock its requirements. If WiF rules are constantly changing there is no way you can have a final version of the code done, ever. Specially when writing or modifying a rule can take a few hours to write, and months to code.
(my humble blog about wargames, in spanish) http://cabezadepuente.blogspot.com.es/
User avatar
jomni
Posts: 2827
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 12:31 am
Contact:

RE: Don't forget the "etc."

Post by jomni »

Well the product page indicates World in Flames Final Edition. What is that?
User avatar
juntoalmar
Posts: 662
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 2:08 pm
Location: Valencia
Contact:

RE: Don't forget the "etc."

Post by juntoalmar »

Well, I'm no expert but WiF Final edition rules apparently date of 2004.

Have rules changed since 2004? Are they going to change in the future?

I don't understand, but it seems to me that people are accepting continuous changes in ADG WiF and at the same time don't accept that MWiF may change in the short future. [&:]

"If the subject is moving, don't pretend the photo to be focused."
(my humble blog about wargames, in spanish) http://cabezadepuente.blogspot.com.es/
User avatar
Joseignacio
Posts: 2798
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 11:25 am
Location: Madrid, Spain

RE: Don't forget the "etc."

Post by Joseignacio »

The rules have changes substantially since 2004. In fact, there is a small revolution going on, with new sets of rules, distributed only in a few groups of players as beta testers. And for better they have been simplified in size, have converted into standard rules what were optional rules, etc..

Apart from that there is what would be considered a Mod in a computer game, which in ADG products is the Patton and the Days of Decision, although these "mods" are from ADG too.

There is a whole WIF world to discover, and I hope that the update to 2013 will be the first to come after the AI.
User avatar
Joseignacio
Posts: 2798
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 11:25 am
Location: Madrid, Spain

RE: Don't forget the "etc."

Post by Joseignacio »

ORIGINAL: jomni

Well the product page indicates World in Flames Final Edition. What is that?

That's the name they gave to the 2004 edition, I believe. But there have been others since.
pzgndr
Posts: 3486
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2004 12:51 am
Location: Maryland

RE: Don't forget the "etc."

Post by pzgndr »

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Chris, who did the original code, wrote 100,000 lines with two [2!] in-line comments and no external documentation (other than the WIF rule book). There was a short external .txt Help file for the players.

Now THAT'S funny! It makes one pause to consider the sheer difficulty of one programmer picking up another programmer's work, sometimes years later and with a different language/compiler for the latest operating system(s). There are many who seem to think old computer games can be easily converted and updated. Yeah, right, no problem. And for games in development just throw in some "help", as if anyone can simply step in and make it happen sooner. There was a Dilbert cartoon about a project needing another 100 man-hours to complete, so the boss hired 99 more programmers and expected it to get done in another hour. Uh-huh. [8|]

I will ask about another of those etc. items. Any estimate for when the half-map ETO and PTO scenarios get released? That's something someone else could "help" knock out in parallel with code development.
Bill Macon
Empires in Arms Developer
Strategic Command Developer
JameyCribbs
Posts: 35
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 2:15 pm

RE: Don't forget the "etc."

Post by JameyCribbs »

ORIGINAL: icitrom_y
You'll pardon me if I think your coding problems, although I empathize and I've been there to some extent myself, are not to my mind the complexity you claim they are. This is a rules-based engine, and for the price asked compared to other gaming software, not that large, and the domain analysis done for you in a large part. That many rules changed, well I don't know what to say, except welcome to software development in the real world. That's why change management is so important. Imagine if you had started with no domain analysis at all.

I have 20 years of software development experience, and not COBOL ("lines of code" LOC is pretty unimportant in object-oriented programming). I was a Rational (later IBM) certified qualified practitioner and instructor for object-oriented programming, object-oriented analysis & design, the Rational Unified Process, and object-oriented requirements analysis. So, I'll reserve the right to claim an expert opinion. I recall Delphi 1.0 and Object Pascal very well, which are perfectly suited for any of this. There are a couple of process models perfect here, the RUP Agile model, for example.

Of what you described of your coding, are types. But, there is a lot more to object-oriented programming than that. For whatever problems you have/had there are many patterns to resolve and mitigate them. That is true of the coding as well as architectural and analysis & design patterns. Moreover, nobody is talking about arbitrary changes. Yeah, sure, if it takes a decade--a decade--to develop something, regardless of just about any business domain, the requirements and business rules will certainly most drastically change. Indeed, that WiF is a living wargame, makes various architectural patterns all the more critical.


That's neither here nor there. That you're alone in this is I think the real issue, not any perceived unhandleable complexity. You're pissing in my ear and trying to get me to believe it's raining. I can see what the real problems are, and they seem to be development process based. And yes, that you inherited someone else's undocumented code base is not the least of the story.

Well, if you are claiming to be an "expert" because you have "20 years of software development experience", then I've got you trumped, bub, with 29+ years of programming. So, when you state that you think that Steve has overstated the complexity of the code, I as an "expert" with 9+ years of programming experience more than you, say that you are full of beans. There is NO WAY that someone can judge the complexity of someone else's code until they have been able to study that code in depth. And you haven't even seen his friggin' code!

So, if you want to complain that mwif does not have all the optional components that you wanted it to have, go right ahead, but, please stop trying to tell Steve how hard his code is to work on or what methodologies he should use to develop his code. You sound silly.
User avatar
SamuraiProgrmmr
Posts: 416
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:15 am
Location: NW Tennessee

RE: Don't forget the "etc."

Post by SamuraiProgrmmr »

These comments do not necessarily reflect the opinions of anyone at Matrix Games
ORIGINAL: icitrom_y

Steve and the resident apologists;

All of that is fair enough if you would have mentioned that to prospective buyers who are/were expecting ADG's WiF, not some subset due to your problems because of the project's history. All this information is conspicuously missing from the advertising. Code WiF RAW 7 or don't. It's your business and your prerogative. Slitherine and Matrix could have let buyers know the real situation in advance so that we could have made an informed decision about purchase. I'm assuming this was discussed in the program management meetings in detail.

You'll pardon me if I think your coding problems, although I empathize and I've been there to some extent myself, are not to my mind the complexity you claim they are. This is a rules-based engine, and for the price asked compared to other gaming software, not that large, and the domain analysis done for you in a large part. That many rules changed, well I don't know what to say, except welcome to software development in the real world. That's why change management is so important. Imagine if you had started with no domain analysis at all.

I have 20 years of software development experience, and not COBOL ("lines of code" LOC is pretty unimportant in object-oriented programming). I was a Rational (later IBM) certified qualified practitioner and instructor for object-oriented programming, object-oriented analysis & design, the Rational Unified Process, and object-oriented requirements analysis. So, I'll reserve the right to claim an expert opinion. I recall Delphi 1.0 and Object Pascal very well, which are perfectly suited for any of this. There are a couple of process models perfect here, the RUP Agile model, for example.

Of what you described of your coding, are types. But, there is a lot more to object-oriented programming than that. For whatever problems you have/had there are many patterns to resolve and mitigate them. That is true of the coding as well as architectural and analysis & design patterns. Moreover, nobody is talking about arbitrary changes. Yeah, sure, if it takes a decade--a decade--to develop something, regardless of just about any business domain, the requirements and business rules will certainly most drastically change. Indeed, that WiF is a living wargame, makes various architectural patterns all the more critical.


That's neither here nor there. That you're alone in this is I think the real issue, not any perceived unhandleable complexity. You're pissing in my ear and trying to get me to believe it's raining. I can see what the real problems are, and they seem to be development process based. And yes, that you inherited someone else's undocumented code base is not the least of the story.

The attitude expressed here really pisses me off, as if you guys are entitled to sales and for whatever product. That I was expecting ADG's WiF is no more unreasonable than you guys were expecting $174 from me without any stories attached about why I can only afford $100 right now.

Do whatever you want and please leave the development drama to yourself. What counts is the product you honestly present and whether people will buy into it. I've been reading on BGG, Consimworld and the home of WiF on the Internet, the Yahoo "WiFDiscussion" group. People are amazingly underwhelmed. And, I notice, just about nobody is aware of just how much of RAW 7 is missing from MWiF already and you seem to be saying it's more or less going to stay that way and diverge further in the coming year.


I fully understand what a shitty position (to be in) you accepted for yourself. I'd suggest that blaming your customer base for--actually--quite reasonable expectations, is not the best business practice. But, go ahead with this apparent attitude about MWiF and WiF; I'm sure I'm probably wrong.
.






icitrom_y (and others),

May I say, Sir, that I have been programming computers since the summer of 1977. Every job I have held as an adult has been 'in the field'. I have made a career out of small, niche products and have earned my living providing such. I believe I have a bit more understanding than some IBMer whose salary was likely paid by Fortune 500 companies and sucking at the government teat. I believe that gives me a little more experience in this arena than you have. I still have my copy of Delphi 1. And 2. And 3. And 5. And 7. And every release since. So as you expect this forum to bow to your knowledge, I expect you to listen to me.

Now. Having said that.

Listen up!

You, sir, are despicable

I have not seen such tomfoolery in quite some time. In fact, I am having trouble recalling ANY such time that I have witnessed same and suspect that you have the dubious honor of being the biggest social undesirable since Thomas Edison took advantage of Tesla.

If you have half the experience you claim, you should know that this has been a labor of unbelievable investment of energy and emotion. Hell, Steve almost worked himself into a grave.

Oh wait, I bet you are a manager!

If you can understand it, here is some boolean for you,

If you don't like the game OR
If you don't like the price OR
If you don't like the package OR
If you won't use it without AI

THEN

Kindly leave the premises

I will likely get banned for this post but to paraphrase Dick Cheney - I shouldn't have said it but I felt better after I did.

Others, can I get some AMENs before I leave?

Sincerely
Bridge is the best wargame going .. Where else can you find a tournament every weekend?
Lingering Frey
Posts: 45
Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2012 10:31 pm

RE: Don't forget the "etc."

Post by Lingering Frey »

ORIGINAL: Joseignacio

ORIGINAL: jomni

Well the product page indicates World in Flames Final Edition. What is that?

That's the name they gave to the 2004 edition, I believe. But there have been others since.

World in Flames - Final Edition (Both Classic and Deluxe) came out in 1996. (I have 3 copies in my closet and I double checked the date.)

The rule booklet introduction explicitly states that ADG intends it to be the final version of WiF.
brian brian
Posts: 3191
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 6:39 pm

RE: Don't forget the "etc."

Post by brian brian »

World in Flames has never been "finished" and hopefully never will be. At times there have been thoughts of "hey, that's IT, it can't get any better now," which are soon trumped by a thought of "hey, what if we tried THIS?," which are soon answered by "Well, I'll volunteer to run a playtest game for THAT."

First Harry Rowland/ADG and now Steve/Matrix have been EXTREMELY gracious throughout the life of the game system in accepting and considering possible improvements from the players.

There is no possible way to have every iteration and idea present in the continually evolving game system available to you, especially on a computerized version. The only way you can receive these things is to wait, or to simply play the paper game, which is still the best game out there and only continues to improve. A sweet new counter set came out just this year. The paper game system is moving forward with what is essentially an open beta, and there are several other games that can be added to the base paper game. All these things will appear in the computer version eventually. But the only way they can appear under our fingertips rather than under a pair of tweezers, is to get started somewhere. If Matrix World in Flames had to wait until every module and rules system was ready for us to run a mouse over, no one knows how many more years that would take.

The decision to go forward as-is can only result in an improved game down the road, as thousands of paying customers using the game (alpha testers, if you will) are likely to find more things to improve than any amount of volunteer beta testers.

It's disappointing to not have every feature you want, NOW, sure. I personally hope work on the Guards Banner Army optional rule stays near the top of the list of things to do. I hope Limited Fighter Interception, where Fighters can only intercept if they are closer to the target hex than the bombing aircraft, is never coded, because this is not a tactical air combat game and I don't know anyone who uses that optional. Everyone who looks at the game probably has a different pair of can't-wait-to-have-this-part / don't-need-to-ever-see-that-part. That's just the nature of a very open game system where the game player is allowed to decide so many things for themselves.

The game is never early / it's always late / first thing you learn / is you always have to wait. The cool part is, it's always worth that wait.
User avatar
SuluSea
Posts: 2378
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 2:13 pm

RE: Don't forget the "etc."

Post by SuluSea »

ORIGINAL: SamuraiProgrammer

Edited because of offensive content.


Stay classy[8|][8|][8|][8|][8|][8|]X infinity
"There’s no such thing as a bitter person who keeps the bitterness to himself.” ~ Erwin Lutzer
User avatar
JudgeDredd
Posts: 8356
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2003 7:28 pm
Location: Scotland

RE: Don't forget the "etc."

Post by JudgeDredd »

ORIGINAL: SamuraiProgrammer


icitrom_y (and others),

May I say, Sir, that I have been programming computers since the summer of 1977. Every job I have held as an adult has been 'in the field'. I have made a career out of small, niche products and have earned my living providing such. I believe I have a bit more understanding than some IBMer whose salary was likely paid by Fortune 500 companies and sucking at the government teat. I believe that gives me a little more experience in this arena than you have. I still have my copy of Delphi 1. And 2. And 3. And 5. And 7. And every release since. So as you expect this forum to bow to your knowledge, I expect you to listen to me.

Now. Having said that.

Listen up!

You, sir, are despicable

I have not seen such tomfoolery in quite some time. In fact, I am having trouble recalling ANY such time that I have witnessed same and suspect that you have the dubious honor of being the biggest social undesirable since Thomas Edison took advantage of Tesla.

If you have half the experience you claim, you should know that this has been a labor of unbelievable investment of energy and emotion. Hell, Steve almost worked himself into a grave.

Oh wait, I bet you are a manager!

If you can understand it, here is some boolean for you,

If you don't like the game OR
If you don't like the price OR
If you don't like the package OR
If you won't use it without AI

THEN

Kindly leave the premises

I will likely get banned for this post but to paraphrase Dick Cheney - I shouldn't have said it but I felt better after I did.

Others, can I get some AMENs before I leave?

Sincerely

EDITED by Moderator to match the poster's edited post.

I've been around here for quite some years - and that is by far the single most rude post I have ever seen. I find it hard to believe you've worked in ANY environment given your use of the English language is limited to foul mouthed, playground language nevermind as a programmer.

This is a family forum for wargamers and, likely, their sons and (hopefully) daughters.

There are plenty of ways you could have told the OP you disagreed with his statement...and indeed some did and with considerably more class than you.

If you don't mind, I don't think I'll bother giving you and Amen - but rather report your post and hope you aren't around these parts again.

Someone has already reported it. Goodbye.
Alba gu' brath
User avatar
Omnius
Posts: 831
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2012 12:10 pm
Location: Salinas, CA

Don't Need a Stinking AI

Post by Omnius »

I disagree that not having an Artificial Ignorance is a problem, I think it's a boon as it forces all players to learn how to play every country in every scenario. Plus we can play better than any Artificial Ignorance possibly can in this extremely complex game. While I do enjoy being able to watch AI's play a game when I first buy it and start it up I find that AI's just screw up games too badly.

I finished my first game of Barbarossa and now I'm on to Guadalcanal. By playing both sides I learned a lot about how things operate and what to do for each country. I look forward to learning how to play Japan and the US in the newly revamped Pacific maps.

Omnius
Shannon V. OKeets
Posts: 22135
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:51 pm
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Contact:

RE: Don't forget the "etc."

Post by Shannon V. OKeets »

ORIGINAL: jomni

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: jglazier

I am not taking sides at all in this volatile thread. I am just curious if there are plans to add any more of the optional rules that the OP mentioned are missing. Or is this all the game will get? Just curious.
Section 2.2.3 of the Players Manual describes the status of optional rules - some are asterisked.

If the manual is a living document that gets updated as we go along, why do we need hard copies? :D
The manual is complete for all 81 optional rules.

And so is the game code in so far as there are additional phases and subphases of the game in the sequence of play. For optional rules that are not yet coded, those phases effectively do nothing presently.

There are unit counters for all the optional rules and code to display those on the screen. In short, virtually all the background work to implement the optional rules has been done. One exception that comes to mind is for the Intelligence optional rule which would require at least one new form, possibly two. What each optional rule requires is special code that cuts into existing code with branching logic.

Take Flying Bombs for example. These are air units, but they cannot fly. They do require their own pilots but are carried by another air unit. I might be a little vague on the details for these units, but the key point from the programming perspective, is that UNLIKE ANY OTHER AIR UNIT they have to be transported during a bombing mission. So all the code about bombing missions needs to be examined and modified for this one optional rule. If the changes aren't "just so" then existing code for all the other air units in the game flying bombing missions can get messed up. That affects ground strikes, port attacks, carpet bombing, ground support, and strategic bombing. And flying bombs always get destroyed, so UNLIKE ANY OTHER AIR UNIT, they never return to base. To implement this optional rule will take a lot of thought and planning, before writing the actual code. And then the modifications will have to be tested, not only for flying bombs, but for all other air units. There is also code for Undoing a move if a player changes his mind, writing relevant information on these units when they are flying out to the saved game file - and reading it back in. I could go on and on about all the coding details. Suffice it to say there are a lot of odds and ends that have to done perfectly or the rule won't work, perhaps the game itself will stop working if the coding mistake is bad enough.

Wanting something doesn't make it happen. Only hard work adds features to a program.
Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.
User avatar
jeffk3510
Posts: 4143
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 5:59 am
Location: Merica

RE: Don't forget the "etc."

Post by jeffk3510 »

ORIGINAL: SamuraiProgrammer

These comments do not necessarily reflect the opinions of anyone at Matrix Games
ORIGINAL: icitrom_y

Steve and the resident apologists;

All of that is fair enough if you would have mentioned that to prospective buyers who are/were expecting ADG's WiF, not some subset due to your problems because of the project's history. All this information is conspicuously missing from the advertising. Code WiF RAW 7 or don't. It's your business and your prerogative. Slitherine and Matrix could have let buyers know the real situation in advance so that we could have made an informed decision about purchase. I'm assuming this was discussed in the program management meetings in detail.

You'll pardon me if I think your coding problems, although I empathize and I've been there to some extent myself, are not to my mind the complexity you claim they are. This is a rules-based engine, and for the price asked compared to other gaming software, not that large, and the domain analysis done for you in a large part. That many rules changed, well I don't know what to say, except welcome to software development in the real world. That's why change management is so important. Imagine if you had started with no domain analysis at all.

I have 20 years of software development experience, and not COBOL ("lines of code" LOC is pretty unimportant in object-oriented programming). I was a Rational (later IBM) certified qualified practitioner and instructor for object-oriented programming, object-oriented analysis & design, the Rational Unified Process, and object-oriented requirements analysis. So, I'll reserve the right to claim an expert opinion. I recall Delphi 1.0 and Object Pascal very well, which are perfectly suited for any of this. There are a couple of process models perfect here, the RUP Agile model, for example.

Of what you described of your coding, are types. But, there is a lot more to object-oriented programming than that. For whatever problems you have/had there are many patterns to resolve and mitigate them. That is true of the coding as well as architectural and analysis & design patterns. Moreover, nobody is talking about arbitrary changes. Yeah, sure, if it takes a decade--a decade--to develop something, regardless of just about any business domain, the requirements and business rules will certainly most drastically change. Indeed, that WiF is a living wargame, makes various architectural patterns all the more critical.


That's neither here nor there. That you're alone in this is I think the real issue, not any perceived unhandleable complexity. You're pissing in my ear and trying to get me to believe it's raining. I can see what the real problems are, and they seem to be development process based. And yes, that you inherited someone else's undocumented code base is not the least of the story.

The attitude expressed here really pisses me off, as if you guys are entitled to sales and for whatever product. That I was expecting ADG's WiF is no more unreasonable than you guys were expecting $174 from me without any stories attached about why I can only afford $100 right now.

Do whatever you want and please leave the development drama to yourself. What counts is the product you honestly present and whether people will buy into it. I've been reading on BGG, Consimworld and the home of WiF on the Internet, the Yahoo "WiFDiscussion" group. People are amazingly underwhelmed. And, I notice, just about nobody is aware of just how much of RAW 7 is missing from MWiF already and you seem to be saying it's more or less going to stay that way and diverge further in the coming year.


I fully understand what a shitty position (to be in) you accepted for yourself. I'd suggest that blaming your customer base for--actually--quite reasonable expectations, is not the best business practice. But, go ahead with this apparent attitude about MWiF and WiF; I'm sure I'm probably wrong.
.
ORIGINAL: SamuraiProgrammer


icitrom_y (and others),

May I say, Sir, that I have been programming computers since the summer of 1977. Every job I have held as an adult has been 'in the field'. I have made a career out of small, niche products and have earned my living providing such. I believe I have a bit more understanding than some IBMer whose salary was likely paid by Fortune 500 companies and sucking at the government teat. I believe that gives me a little more experience in this arena than you have. I still have my copy of Delphi 1. And 2. And 3. And 5. And 7. And every release since. So as you expect this forum to bow to your knowledge, I expect you to listen to me.

Now. Having said that.

Listen up!

You, sir, are despicable

I have not seen such tomfoolery in quite some time. In fact, I am having trouble recalling ANY such time that I have witnessed same and suspect that you have the dubious honor of being the biggest social undesirable since Thomas Edison took advantage of Tesla.

If you have half the experience you claim, you should know that this has been a labor of unbelievable investment of energy and emotion. Hell, Steve almost worked himself into a grave.

Oh wait, I bet you are a manager!

If you can understand it, here is some boolean for you,

If you don't like the game OR
If you don't like the price OR
If you don't like the package OR
If you won't use it without AI

THEN

Kindly leave the premises

I will likely get banned for this post but to paraphrase Dick Cheney - I shouldn't have said it but I felt better after I did.

Others, can I get some AMENs before I leave?

Sincerely

EDITED by Moderator to match the poster's edited post.





My 3 yr old has far more better manners than you ever will.

Stay classy
Life is tough. The sooner you realize that, the easier it will be.

Dez caught it
User avatar
jeffk3510
Posts: 4143
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 5:59 am
Location: Merica

RE: Don't forget the "etc."

Post by jeffk3510 »

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: jomni

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets



Section 2.2.3 of the Players Manual describes the status of optional rules - some are asterisked.

If the manual is a living document that gets updated as we go along, why do we need hard copies? :D
The manual is complete for all 81 optional rules.

And so is the game code in so far as there are additional phases and subphases of the game in the sequence of play. For optional rules that are not yet coded, those phases effectively do nothing presently.

There are unit counters for all the optional rules and code to display those on the screen. In short, virtually all the background work to implement the optional rules has been done. One exception that comes to mind is for the Intelligence optional rule which would require at least one new form, possibly two. What each optional rule requires is special code that cuts into existing code with branching logic.

Take Flying Bombs for example. These are air units, but they cannot fly. They do require their own pilots but are carried by another air unit. I might be a little vague on the details for these units, but the key point from the programming perspective, is that UNLIKE ANY OTHER AIR UNIT they have to be transported during a bombing mission. So all the code about bombing missions needs to be examined and modified for this one optional rule. If the changes aren't "just so" then existing code for all the other air units in the game flying bombing missions can get messed up. That affects ground strikes, port attacks, carpet bombing, ground support, and strategic bombing. And flying bombs always get destroyed, so UNLIKE ANY OTHER AIR UNIT, they never return to base. To implement this optional rule will take a lot of thought and planning, before writing the actual code. And then the modifications will have to be tested, not only for flying bombs, but for all other air units. There is also code for Undoing a move if a player changes his mind, writing relevant information on these units when they are flying out to the saved game file - and reading it back in. I could go on and on about all the coding details. Suffice it to say there are a lot of odds and ends that have to done perfectly or the rule won't work, perhaps the game itself will stop working if the coding mistake is bad enough.

Wanting something doesn't make it happen. Only hard work adds features to a program.

As is any thing in life.

You work hard, you play hard.
Life is tough. The sooner you realize that, the easier it will be.

Dez caught it
bo
Posts: 4175
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:52 pm

RE: Don't forget the "etc."

Post by bo »



Bo
icitrom_y
Posts: 25
Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2013 7:10 pm

RE: Don't forget the "etc."

Post by icitrom_y »

Hey, pause, reverse, rewind.
 
I bought into the full monty within a couple of hours of release. And, I wasn't charged a special "product not yet complete" rate. I have and had no problem waiting for various as yet unfinished elements coming online over a reasonable period. It's when I started reading about how these elements will never be developed that I posted my initial comments about, that a priority should be that RAW 7 at least should be implemented.
 
The major stakeholders here had but to post all the items that were not yet implemented and their thoughts about their future development at the top of their advertising posts. Then, we the purchasers could have made an informed decision about whether we want to buy their product. They purposefully hid that information. Is that not so.
 
I popped open MWiF last week and saw that it wasn't just a couple of options still yet to be implemented but a whole bunch. And more talk about what will not be implemented and more talk about future for-pay modules which one erroneously assumed was part of the initial release but simply delayed.
 
It is Steve who started with the whole woe-is-me, this is so complex, and I'm an idiot, i.e. the typical techniques such as a red herring and shoot the messenger. He just assumed I'm a boob who doesn't know the first thing about non-trivial software development, and tried to sell me a story. So, I responded accordingly.
 
Don't take me for an idiot and try to pull the wool over my eyes. Simultaneously, I can recognize Steve's hard work. That he's doing this for free and It's a "labour of love," then I would have liked to have seen very low "labour of love" prices. I'll reserve comment about the wisdom of working for free.
 
Whatever...put all these excuses, reasons, issues, etc. up front so that consumers don't blow $200 on a computer wargame, and then get into a situation where you're blaming the consumer for being "unrealistic."
 
I called Matrix/Slitherine a day after I made my purchase, asking for a refund, before the physical box ships. They told me they don't offer refunds because a product fails to meet expectations, so tough luck.
 
Whatever...I got burned for $200 because I was impatient to wait for detailed product reviews. I trusted in the Matrix name. Lesson learned, and this should be the worst thing that ever happens to me. Well played, Matrix.
.
bo
Posts: 4175
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:52 pm

RE: Don't forget the "etc."

Post by bo »

ORIGINAL: icitrom_y

Hey, pause, reverse, rewind.

I bought into the full monty within a couple of hours of release. And, I wasn't charged a special "product not yet complete" rate. I have and had no problem waiting for various as yet unfinished elements coming online over a reasonable period. It's when I started reading about how these elements will never be developed that I posted my initial comments about, that a priority should be that RAW 7 at least should be implemented.

The major stakeholders here had but to post all the items that were not yet implemented and their thoughts about their future development at the top of their advertising posts. Then, we the purchasers could have made an informed decision about whether we want to buy their product. They purposefully hid that information. Is that not so.

I popped open MWiF last week and saw that it wasn't just a couple of options still yet to be implemented but a whole bunch. And more talk about what will not be implemented and more talk about future for-pay modules which one erroneously assumed was part of the initial release but simply delayed.

It is Steve who started with the whole woe-is-me, this is so complex, and I'm an idiot, i.e. the typical techniques such as a red herring and shoot the messenger. He just assumed I'm a boob who doesn't know the first thing about non-trivial software development, and tried to sell me a story. So, I responded accordingly.

Don't take me for an idiot and try to pull the wool over my eyes. Simultaneously, I can recognize Steve's hard work. That he's doing this for free and It's a "labour of love," then I would have liked to have seen very low "labour of love" prices. I'll reserve comment about the wisdom of working for free.

Whatever...put all these excuses, reasons, issues, etc. up front so that consumers don't blow $200 on a computer wargame, and then get into a situation where you're blaming the consumer for being "unrealistic."

I called Matrix/Slitherine a day after I made my purchase, asking for a refund, before the physical box ships. They told me they don't offer refunds because a product fails to meet expectations, so tough luck.

Whatever...I got burned for $200 because I was impatient to wait for detailed product reviews. I trusted in the Matrix name. Lesson learned, and this should be the worst thing that ever happens to me. Well played, Matrix.
.

I do hope and pray icitrom that you do not think I was referring to you, I was referring to the foul mouth s I respect your opinion but not the other foul mouth contibution to these posts, and I am mortified that something has not been said by the powers that be.

Bo

Post Reply

Return to “World in Flames”