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
SamuraiProgrmmr
Posts: 416
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:15 am
Location: NW Tennessee

RE: Don't forget the "etc."

Post by SamuraiProgrmmr »

For what it is worth,

I forgot that this forum would be read by children and failed to exert appropriate limits on my language. For this, I am wrong and sincerely apologize.


To icitrom_y,

It was plainly stated on the order page that an ai would not be included

IMO This is perhaps the least buggy piece of gaming software released in this decade
Bridge is the best wargame going .. Where else can you find a tournament every weekend?
User avatar
berto
Posts: 21461
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2002 1:15 am
Location: metro Chicago, Illinois, USA
Contact:

RE: Don't forget the "etc."

Post by berto »

ORIGINAL: 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.
+1

(see my sig, 3rd line)
Campaign Series Legion https://cslegion.com/
Campaign Series Lead Coder https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... hp?f=10167
Panzer Campaigns, Panzer Battles Lead Coder https://wargameds.com
User avatar
Arnir
Posts: 482
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2002 11:07 pm
Location: Alberta. In Texas.

RE: Don't forget the "etc."

Post by Arnir »

This is a genuine question, not a talking point: The store pages says, "In addition to the full set of rules from World in Flames, Final Edition, there are 58 optional rules." Are these 58 rules currently available plus some net yet ready or is it that only part of the 58 are currently available?
User avatar
FroBodine
Posts: 874
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 4:13 am
Location: Brentwood, California (not the OJ one)

RE: Don't forget the "etc."

Post by FroBodine »

There are currently 58 optional rules that do indeed work. 24 other ones do not work.
User avatar
Arnir
Posts: 482
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2002 11:07 pm
Location: Alberta. In Texas.

RE: Don't forget the "etc."

Post by Arnir »

ORIGINAL: jglazier

There are currently 58 optional rules that do indeed work. 24 other ones do not work.

Ok, thanks for that. It's been so long since I've played WiF I'm completely out of the loop. Next Wednesday is payday and I'm having this sinking feeling I'm going to be spending some money.
User avatar
Klydon
Posts: 2300
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 3:39 am

RE: Don't forget the "etc."

Post by Klydon »

It appears a few observations are in order.
 
First, it would not surprise me if the OP had another user name around here with far more posts and is just looking to cause issues. I wonder if a IP comparison would result in any surprises there, but only the mods will know. Either way, the OP is out of line with his rants and if he doesn't like it, by all means, don't bother coming back under that user name again.
 
Secondly, anyone that has been around gaming (especially board games) know that the words "final edition" don't really mean "final". I can name several systems/games that the words "final edition" appear only to see new versions/new content, etc come out at some later time. It pretty much happens every single time. Do people realize what happens when a game company stops putting out new material for their games? Is it any wonder why the original WiF game had a lot of add on modules or do I need to explain why? Come on, think about it. This forum is probably filled with a lot of old geezers that absolutely should know better having seen it happen over and over again in the gaming industry. When a company stops publishing new content, the doors close soon after. WiF has not only come out with new modules, but has also come out with improved versions of existing modules.
 
Other people may be giving SamuraiProgrammer a hard time about his post, but I will give it a hearty AMEN.
 
From what I have seen of this game, I also agree with him about it being one of the best to hit the game market in a long time in terms of being ready to play and with extremely few bugs. If you would like some entertaining reading about some programing that isn't even close, go read the CiV-5 Forums or any Ubi product forum. Make sure your kids don't see it tho. It can be pretty harsh. [;)]
 
Kudos to Steve not only for the product but the great follow up I am seeing here in the forums. /salute.
DBeves
Posts: 400
Joined: Mon Jul 29, 2002 5:11 am

RE: Don't forget the "etc."

Post by DBeves »

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.

OK - so I have to admit I didnt spot the asterisks so am a little disappointed some of those rules are not actually in the game after reading the manual - they add a lot in my opinion.

That said - it would be nice to know what are likely to get done and what arent. Some of them I can live without but would have thought A Bombs for example pretty essential to the game. I never played WIF - but have difficulty understanding how A bomb development was ever considered optional.

I can see the sheer effort thats gone into this thing and dont regret the purchase one little bit.
User avatar
Moltke71
Posts: 1246
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2000 3:00 pm

RE: Don't forget the "etc."

Post by Moltke71 »

SauraiProgrammer,

AMEN!!!
Jim Cobb
goulash
Posts: 91
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 5:06 pm

RE: Don't forget the "etc."

Post by goulash »

A Bombs were 99% research and then 1% practical in WW2. Whilst a nice to have implemented, this is no way near a game killer here is it really?


Also Amen to a previous post and double Amen to taking it on the chin and showing true maturity when it counts.
DBeves
Posts: 400
Joined: Mon Jul 29, 2002 5:11 am

RE: Don't forget the "etc."

Post by DBeves »

ORIGINAL: goulash

A Bombs were 99% research and then 1% practical in WW2. Whilst a nice to have implemented, this is no way near a game killer here is it really?


Also Amen to a previous post and double Amen to taking it on the chin and showing true maturity when it counts.

Well - I didnt say it was a game killer - just that they are kind of central to how the war ended arent they ? Without an A bomb the war ends Ahistorically in every case. As I say - I am disappointed - after reading the optional rules without noticing the asterisks that some of them arent there. From what has been said I think inclusion of any of them is a long way off.
goulash
Posts: 91
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 5:06 pm

RE: Don't forget the "etc."

Post by goulash »

Agreed you never said that and I was not trying to be a smart*** either. I think you have a perfect right to state your disappointments, I was just merely saying, is this not something that the imagination can take care of until implemented? Sorry if my last post sounded smarmy
User avatar
Erik Rutins
Posts: 39324
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 4:00 pm
Location: Vermont, USA
Contact:

RE: Don't forget the "etc."

Post by Erik Rutins »

Hello everyone - please remember to remain civil. Our discussion here are among friends who share the same interests. We should be able to discuss and disagree without making things personal.

Personal attacks and profanity are not allowed on this forum. It's a family friendly forum and such activity results in a warning and, if continued, a ban. Steve has already moderated this thread, but I think it's worth an additional reminder.

Regarding the original post, we went over the product page before release to make sure it only reflected the rules and content included at release. We also posted on the forum regarding the NetPlay issues we found and were still working on just before release to make sure customers had that information. We also posted regarding what we still planned to add in post-release in the form of free updates. IMHO MWIF is WIF - I've never seen a more faithful monster wargame to computer adaptation, and we'll continue to update and support it over time with additional optional rules, scenarios and game features.

Regards,

- Erik
Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC


Image

For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.
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

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.
No, it is not so. Read the product info page. It says WiFFE, Not DoD, not AiF, etc. It states: no AI, no PBEM etc. It also states:

"In addition to the full set of rules from World in Flames, Final Edition, there are 58 optional rules..."

Considering you seem to want to project you have a lot of knowledge about the game (amongst other things) then maybe you would have thought to investigate here on the forums as to which optional rules are not yet implemented, before your pressed the "Buy" button. Or just ask first?

You are a big fan of the game but you joined here Oct 20 of this year? Really?

So you hit the "Buy" button without researching what you were buying. I find that odd for such a smart guy to do.



Paul
User avatar
jomni
Posts: 2827
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 12:31 am
Contact:

RE: Don't forget the "etc."

Post by jomni »

ORIGINAL: 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.

Funny how it didn't end up to be the Final. Just like Paradox games complete collections.
Rocko911
Posts: 287
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 3:13 am

RE: Don't forget the "etc."

Post by Rocko911 »

Dear SamuraiProgrammer, while you are more than able to have an opinion and voice your issues, please in the future remember to keep them in a civil format. I have been a long time buyer of Matrix games and a poster off and on here (This 2004 user name replace my old one for me ) and have never seen such a poor display from a member on this forum. We all like to have a hearty disagreement but find they are best when we can talk about facts and examples, not insults. So you will NOT get a Amen from me, however you will get a disappointing shaking of my head.[:-]
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: DBeves

ORIGINAL: goulash

A Bombs were 99% research and then 1% practical in WW2. Whilst a nice to have implemented, this is no way near a game killer here is it really?


Also Amen to a previous post and double Amen to taking it on the chin and showing true maturity when it counts.

Well - I didnt say it was a game killer - just that they are kind of central to how the war ended arent they ? Without an A bomb the war ends Ahistorically in every case. As I say - I am disappointed - after reading the optional rules without noticing the asterisks that some of them arent there. From what has been said I think inclusion of any of them is a long way off.
Not to generate a political debate but many historians believe Japan would have surrendered anyway and did so quickly as soon as the Russians attacked Manchuria (August 8, 1945). Some also believe the main idea of dropping the A-bombs was to impress Stalin.

An interesting take on this can be seen in Episode 3 of Oliver Stone's Untold History of the US

In any event it is an optional rule in WiF and is structured in a manner that just makes it one maximum value strategic bombing attack that can be carried out once a turn. By 1945 in many games the US has got the units to do several conventional strat bomb attacks at max odds per turn anyway.

The odd thing about the optional rule is that you can drop the bomb every turn from March-April 45, which is once per turn for three turns rather than twice on the last turn - which is of course ahistorical since the bomb was not tested until July 45 when Trueman was at the Potsdam conference.
Paul
t001001001
Posts: 326
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:06 pm

RE: Don't forget the "etc."

Post by t001001001 »

Not to generate a political debate but.....

and then ur opinion [:D]

Good one dude! You should have also put a PS to suggest this thread be closed before anyone gets 'unseemly' and disagrees w/ you [8D] heh
t001001001
Posts: 326
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:06 pm

RE: Don't forget the "etc."

Post by t001001001 »

matrixgames used to push these threads into a sub forum titled:

"Nobody Asked Me But....."

[:D]

Anybody else remember that?



Eventually the Matrix guys got sick of that too, got rid of it, and said: "take it somewhere else, gents." and temporarily provided a link to vinny's place called madcowssteakhouse at the time. Prolly a decade ago. Some of us go way back... Anwyay, now Vinny has retired and it's http://www.maddogdrivethru.net/ I'm not here to promote the place. I'm saying if u want to hang w/ matrixgames players, talk politics, 'break ur barstool over somebody's head' - that's the place.


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

RE: Don't forget the "etc."

Post by icitrom_y »

It sounds like there some fogginess about "option" means with respect to Matrix-WiF and ADG-WiF (Raw 7). I recognized the greyed-out options as from WiF and I was surprised to see just how many there are greyed-out. So, when people here spoke up I thought maybe I was putting my foot in my mouth and these "options" were some new Matrix-WiF option construct.
 
So, I took the few minutes to match-up those from MWiF and RAW 7. The list below can also serve to anyone interested in knowing about it without having to buy the game and be surprised, or sifting through the small print, so-to-speak, of these forums.
 
Of the 24 currently unimplemented Matrix-WiF options, they are listed below as described in ADG-WiF (RAW 7), and from which add-on module in the WiF world they come from, if any.
 
1. Frogmen (Option 24 (Asia Aflame))
2. Partisan HQs (Option 72 (Politics in Flames))
3. Guards Banner Armies (Option 70 (Leaders in Flames))
4. City Based Volunteers (Option 67 (Africa Aflame, Leaders in Flames, Politics in Flames)
5. V-Weapons (Option 23 (Planes in Flames))
6. Atomic Bombs (Option 23 (Planes in Flames))
7. Naval Supply Units (Option 69 (Ships in Flames))
8. Convoys in Flames (Option 76 (Convoys in Flames))
9. Rough Seas (Option 75 (Ships in Flames, Cruisers in Flames))
10. Oil Tankers (Option 76 (Convoys in Flames))
11. Surprised ZOC (Option 20 (World in Flames))
12. Kamikazes (Option 60 (World in Flames))
13. Bounce Combat (Option 22 (World in Flames))
14. En-route Aircraft Interception (Option 51 (World in Flames))
15. Limited Aircraft Interception (Option 57 (World in Flames))
16. Flying Bombs (Option 59 (Planes in Flames))
17. Naval Offensive Chit (Option 61 (World in Flames))
18. Isolated Reorganization Limits (Option 47 (World in Flames))
19. Hitler's War (Option 49 (World in Flames))
20. Recruitment Limits (Option 16 (World in Flames))
21. Japanese Command Conflict (Option 64 (World in Flames))
22. USSR-Japan Compulsory Peace (Option 50 (World in Flames))
23. The Ukraine (Option 62 (World in Flames))
24. Intelligence (Option 63 (World in Flames))
 
 
Obviously, it's my personal opinion, but cripes, that's a whole hell'ov'a lot of RAW 7. I still, even now, don't care that all this will trickle in over time. The crux of the matter for me is what I keep reading from the developers and managers, again and again, nope, Matrix-WiF is its own thing and we'll include what we want to and deem feasible. Fair enough. I wish I'd known that $200 back. Moreover, with so much on the development plate at this point, expanding the product to include ADG sister products like, Days of Decision, well, that's totally flown out of my mind.
 
 
I would add an important point. Some of the list above has been deemed too complex to implement, so they'll just skip it. Indeed, exactly because these options so fundamentally alter the game of WiF indicates that they are not simply minor chrome add-ons.
 
I yanked out my 2008 annual that contains the rules for Factories in Flames (FiF). (FiF is not listed as part of MWiF. I'm just using it as an example for the following point.) It's a few pages of rules. But, if you go through it in detail you can see where the rules impact the game just about everywhere. That's a major big deal. From Steve's point-of-view, FiF is not simply a stick in the spokes of his wheels, it's a barrelful of sticks. If his code is not architecturally so structured, it means a lot of development pain. From my consumer's point-of-view, FiF is a major option, not to be implemented, and makes MWiF divergent from ADG's WiF. Once I saw the list of the other 24 unimplemented options, well that was just way too much for me.
 
 
To respond to you, Bo, no I don't think you were talking about me. I recognized that you were referencing the quasi-violent post up-thread. I appreciate your sentiment as well as the professional nature of the Matrix moderators here. I understand where I am. There are a bunch of geeky or immature types and that's part of the wargaming world and subculture/demographic.
 
I also understand that Steve is offended and feels unappreciated by, from his point-of-view, another geeky immature type (what does he know of my problems). Steve, I totally understand the corners of your four walls. But, it's not my place to be concerned about that, not unless you're going to sell your product at a discount in exchange.
 
Yes, of course, one can write one line of requirements (in this case, in part, ADG-WiF RAW 7), and it implies an entire new subsystem. Using that as an argument, to my mind as an experienced developer, is a non-starter. WiF is what it is as defined by Harry Rowland, and you guys took it upon yourself to make his game. Even though it implies a whole new mountain of work, I cannot criticize my domain experts that reality implies too much work for me. I can tell them the software development implications and they can decide whether they want to pay/buy.
 
That you are afraid to touch your code and feel it is too brittle is again not my concern as a consumer:
 
I'm sure you are aware of FURPS+
 
Functionality
Usability
Reliability
Performance
Supportability
 
And the several dozen other -ilities that go under all that.
 
I refuse, as the consumer, to be made a scapegoat of unreasonableness and being unrealistic, because the developers missed the boat on several critical attributes in that all-important list above, and it's continually biting you in the ass even now. In particular, maintainability, and process issues vis-à-vis iterations. I didn't do anything wrong except pony up $200 faster than I should have.
 
With respect to various comments in this thread of how I, as a consumer, was too stupid to have re-read years' worth of posts in order to unravel what is/isn't/will/won't be implemented, you speak more of yourselves than of me I think.
 
Mr. Rutins wrtites above, "Regarding the original post, we went over the product page before release to make sure it only reflected the rules and content included at release." Sounds like the practice of due diligence as advised by an attorney. I'm not claiming any legal right and I'm sure you guys are covered.
 
Also, some cleanup comments: Nope this is not a sock puppet. I never had occasion to use the Matrix Forums. I gave up on a computerized WiF years and years ago. I heard over on BGG that MWiF was finally coming out. I checked out the several advertising posts, especially the 7 Wows post. I thought MWiF looked amazing functionally (and I still do). I think Steve did a bang-up job in his functional design/port from cardboard. Also, the maps are awesome.
 
I performed some due diligence here in these forums. I pretty much stopped when I found the list of which ADG modules are included, noting that only Factories in Flames (FiF) was omitted from Matrix-WiF. I was OK with that. I took that at face value, which was my main mistake, I guess, if I understand people's criticisms of my position. I had some questions about the maps so I just recently registered on these forums so I could post my questions.
 
I know of Matrix for many years and I just put my faith in the brand, such that if anything was missing from the day-1 release, I was confident it would arrive later. It's only when I started reading, understanding, and grasping that MWiF will be its own beast, already well divergent from ADG's WiF, that the red flags started to go up. I have no interest in learning some other game, albeit clearly originally sourced from ADG's WiF.
 
That understanding took a couple of days of reading the manuals that came with the download and these forums. So, I quickly asked Matrix for a refund before the physical product ships. Slitherine responded with a, and I paraphrase, no, too bad for me.
 
Well, if I'm stuck with this--in my opinion--not WiF, I thought I'd post about my position, which is my original post, in order to (a) make people aware of this situation, and (b) if people agree with me, that we collectively urge that MWiF be at least ADG WiF compliant; i.e. make our wishes known.
 
Then the apologists and fanboys fell out of the woodwork with their usual venom and immaturity.
 
And, Steve was very offended that I should have the temerity to suggest that programming all of RAW 7 is actually not the undoable monster he was trying to convince me of. Obviously (to me; in my opinion), the development project has severe structural and process issues, none of which are Steve's fault. When one is afraid to touch one's code in order to add functionality, that's a giant red flag.
 
I also get the business requirements (constraints) inherent in this business case. This is WiF, not Halo 3. The business case warrants only so many manual resources. And, I could go on about risk mitigation in the first iterations such that makes regression testing as cheap and painless as possible. But, I'll only mention that one sentence because I recognize that it is not my place to come in as an after-the-fact, 20/20 hindsight, laser pointer, stranger, to possible erroneous decisions. Software development only ever came into the discussion because Steve brought it up, and only as an ad hominem argument against me.
 
As an individual I hope all the stakeholders make oodles of money, and they'd deserve it. I don't begrudge anyone their due. As an owner of MWiF, I'm hoping I've pulled enough levers such that the marketing and economics guides the product managers to ensure that MWiF is a computerized version of ADG WiF and not its own offshoot--as it most definitely is right now--and in a reasonable (not 3-5 years) timeframe. I know you have NetPlay to fix, and extend it to 6 players, and PBEM is a biggie, hence the title of my original post, "don't forget the etc."
.
Lingering Frey
Posts: 45
Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2012 10:31 pm

RE: Don't forget the "etc."

Post by Lingering Frey »

ORIGINAL: jomni

ORIGINAL: Lingering Frey

ORIGINAL: Joseignacio




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.

Funny how it didn't end up to be the Final. Just like Paradox games complete collections.

They were kind enough to publish the rulebook for the Final Edition as loose pages for a binder, so that new rules or errata could be added to the Final Edition.

The "Final" part was more about the map and basic counter sets (either deluxe with expansions or a more stripped down classic version). They knew the game would continue to evolve as long as people loved playing it. 17 years later, it is clearly still going strong. Personally, I have a soft spot in my heart for 3rd edition, since it was the first version I ever played and it got me playing serious wargames again.
Post Reply

Return to “World in Flames”