Mandatory Losses Not Enforced

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Numdydar
Expectations that the game should have been perfect on release is a little extreme.

hoo boy, here come the "straw man arguments"...I don't recall anyone suggesting that the game should have been perfect upon release, or even perfect a year after release. But it should be significantly further along than it is.

ORIGINAL: Numdydar
The issue with all these games, WitP, WitE, even WitW, is that developers can only fix so many issues with the limited number of testers available.

Just to clarify--testers identify issues, not fix them, which the devs should do. I wasn't part of the beta team so can't really comment, although to me it seems that blaming game issues on lack of available testers is rather odd--I thought that this game had been in development for many years, with die-hard fans practically frothing at the mouth to get their hands on the game--I would think that there would have been plenty of beta testers. The question is whether Matrix and Steve could be bothered to deal with all of the resulting feedback and then delay the game as necessary to resolve outstanding issues.

ORIGINAL: Numdydar
As an interesting aside, people on the WitW forums are making similar comments about that game and want to wait for patches, etc. as they do not want to be beta testers either

I have not bought WitW, although I review the forum, and it sounds like it was much more polished than this game or WitE upon release, although they certainly have further tweaking to do.

Sure, its great that there is steady (if slow) progress with this game, it is certainly better than how some other games have worked out, but in future I will keep my money in my pocket for any conversions of complex board games until they are demonstrated as fully-baked. I have always wanted to pick up Empires in Arms, but it sounded like a mess upon release and by now it sounds like it's just been abandoned...

[Numdydar]

EiA is pretty bad and development on it has stopped entirely. Which makes the point I was making about WiF. Progress is still being made, it may not be as fast as everyone would like, but this is far better than EiA.

We respectfully disagree on the current game state. You feel that it should be further along. But that is just based on your feeling without any knowledge of what is actually going on in the beta forum. I do not know either, but based on my own recent experience with the game, it is in pretty good shape.

Of course if you wanted the game fixes to be further along, then you can do what I do and report things as I find them like others do. Who knows with your involvement in helping out we could have an AI by now [:D]

I definitely understand if that is not something you want or are willing to do. So no harm no foul in not helping.

WitW is in a lot better shape since it is based on the WitE engine and did not have to be coded based on a very think rule set designed for a physical game. The WitE forums had very similar threads like this about progress being slow, major issues need resolution. Just like WitP, WitE is still being patched 4 years out with major changes to the game. So in comparison, WiF's rate of fixes is going very fast [:)]

Just some things to consider.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Numdydar
EiA is pretty bad and development on it has stopped entirely. Which makes the point I was making about WiF.

Yup, that was one I was looking forward to, but wanted to wait until it was patched, and then... Sad.

ORIGINAL: Numdydar
Of course if you wanted the game fixes to be further along, then you can do what I do and report things as I find them like others do. Who knows with your involvement in helping out we could have an AI by now [:D]

I definitely understand if that is not something you want or are willing to do. So no harm no foul in not helping.

I'm actually playing through a GW game now; have encountered (and reported) some weird bugs but neglected make saves to post, so I'll try to do that in future. I'd be glad to help identify bugs--no disrespect intended, but I think that the current batch of beta testers have outlived some degree of usefulness--they are all very familiar with the game at this point, it works on their machines, etc. etc., but that doesn't mean that newcomers won't have problems.

ORIGINAL: Numdydar
WitW is in a lot better shape since it is based on the WitE engine and did not have to be coded based on a very think rule set designed for a physical game. The WitE forums had very similar threads like this about progress being slow, major issues need resolution. Just like WitP, WitE is still being patched 4 years out with major changes to the game. So in comparison, WiF's rate of fixes is going very fast [:)]

Yes, I played WitE a lot when it first came out, but for a variety of reasons eventually gave up on it. The main reason, I think, is that I just don't like Grigsby games--over-engineered, convoluted, black-box combat mechanics, etc. I just didn't think that the game felt like the war in Russia--at all... And the law of unintended consequences (aggravated by the complicated mechanics and the difficulty of modeling the war in Russia) ensured that every patch that fixed one thing broke another. Kudos to Matrix and the devs for bringing out another patch, but patches won't save that game for me.

[Numdydar]

Maybe WitE 2.0 will bring you back when it comes out in a few years [:)]

[joshuamnave]

ORIGINAL: Numdydar


Of course if you wanted the game fixes to be further along, then you can do what I do and report things as I find them like others do. Who knows with your involvement in helping out we could have an AI by now [:D]

You seriously need to stop with this. I'm a customer, not an employee and not a beta tester. My sole responsibility in this is to give Matrix money. Matrix responsibility is to give me the product as advertised. I have lived up to my ONLY responsibility in this contract, Matrix has not, and has shown little interest in making it right.

That aside, because I do want the product I purchased to work as intended and for the development to continue on to include the features that were advertised as part of the game but are as of yet not even being worked on, I report bugs. I reported the bug in question over a year ago, and it has been reported repeatedly since then. Same with peacekeepers (for which there IS NO WORKAROUND) and several others. Matrix or Steve decided not to fix those bugs before moving on to Netplay, so forgive me (or don't, I don't really care if this offends you or not) if I don't share your smug certainty that everything will work out in the end.

Yes, I feel entitled to rant, and I think others who are upset about the state of the game are equally entitled to their anger. You're entitled to be an apologist if it makes you happy. But don't expect the rest of us to just say "oh, well if a few of the beta testers and fan boys think it's all hunky dory we'll just suck it up and be glad we donated money to a hobby project even if we thought we were buying a finished game".

How cool would it be if a few thousand people donated 100 bucks to me so I could pursue my hobbies?

[AxelNL]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

ORIGINAL: Numdydar
EiA is pretty bad and development on it has stopped entirely. Which makes the point I was making about WiF.

Yup, that was one I was looking forward to, but wanted to wait until it was patched, and then... Sad.

ORIGINAL: Numdydar
Of course if you wanted the game fixes to be further along, then you can do what I do and report things as I find them like others do. Who knows with your involvement in helping out we could have an AI by now [:D]

I definitely understand if that is not something you want or are willing to do. So no harm no foul in not helping.

I'm actually playing through a GW game now; have encountered (and reported) some weird bugs but neglected make saves to post, so I'll try to do that in future. I'd be glad to help identify bugs--no disrespect intended, but I think that the current batch of beta testers have outlived some degree of usefulness--

that is the first time I have been declared being some degree of useless. I am currently testing netplay, which is getting better every week because of two pairs of betatesters, amongst myself.[8|]

they are all very familiar with the game at this point, it works on their machines, etc. etc., but that doesn't mean that newcomers won't have problems.

actually in Netplay things did not work on my machine as well [:(]

ORIGINAL: Numdydar
WitW is in a lot better shape since it is based on the WitE engine and did not have to be coded based on a very think rule set designed for a physical game. The WitE forums had very similar threads like this about progress being slow, major issues need resolution. Just like WitP, WitE is still being patched 4 years out with major changes to the game. So in comparison, WiF's rate of fixes is going very fast [:)]

Yes, I played WitE a lot when it first came out, but for a variety of reasons eventually gave up on it. The main reason, I think, is that I just don't like Grigsby games--over-engineered, convoluted, black-box combat mechanics, etc. I just didn't think that the game felt like the war in Russia--at all... And the law of unintended consequences (aggravated by the complicated mechanics and the difficulty of modeling the war in Russia) ensured that every patch that fixed one thing broke another. Kudos to Matrix and the devs for bringing out another patch, but patches won't save that game for me.

ah well - the joy of being a beta tester. I can imagine the frustration some of the posters have. I had a major moment of that last spring, but got over it.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Numdydar
Maybe WitE 2.0 will bring you back when it comes out in a few years [:)]

I'll almost certainly buy it, it sounds like the logistics treatment from WitW will make a big difference. Ultimately, however, I'm just not a fan of the whole game model--the IGOUGO movement, the bizarre combat model, strange (to my mind) decisions over what players control and don't control, etc.

Most important, I am not convinced that the war in Russia in its entirety is really susceptible to being modeled well in a wargame--so much of what made the campaign what it was was based on very poor decisions by both sides that players (with full hindsight) are not likely to replicate. So the war inevitably ends up a very different beast from history, with very different ebb and flow. Nothing wrong with that, it just ends up feeling like a different war...

[brian brian]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

ORIGINAL: Numdydar
Maybe WitE 2.0 will bring you back when it comes out in a few years [:)]

I'll almost certainly buy it, it sounds like the logistics treatment from WitW will make a big difference. Ultimately, however, I'm just not a fan of the whole game model--the IGOUGO movement, the bizarre combat model, strange (to my mind) decisions over what players control and don't control, etc.

Most important, I am not convinced that the war in Russia in its entirety is really susceptible to being modeled well in a wargame--so much of what made the campaign what it was was based on very poor decisions by both sides that players (with full hindsight) are not likely to replicate. So the war inevitably ends up a very different beast from history, with very different ebb and flow. Nothing wrong with that, it just ends up feeling like a different war...

This is a fascinating post for me. I didn't realize those particular games were I-Go-You-Go. That whole system of gaming should be a relic of the 20th century now that we are obviously mostly going to play games on computers. I am just starting to poke around to find a designer who designs to use the power of technology to simulate military decision making, which always had to be done in real time, on limited accuracy information, and frequently with time delays in the transmission of that information from and to the scene of battle (though I like games that simulate what is beyond a commander's control, such as which aircraft design comes off the production lines first, as in WiF). I don't see any reason a good game design can't use technology to simulate those factors. In the American Civil War, for example (and many others of course), Army commanders had to maneuver entire wings of their army on one or more hour delays in receiving information and their units receiving their orders. I have never seen that in a paper war-game beyond a limited use of "activation" type die rolls to see if units move or not.

First person shooters get limited intell exactly correct, from what I can tell. Your information is what you can "see" on the screen, and possibly some sort of message feed via audio, or text.

If someone is designing operational and strategic games of WWII like that, I would like to know. Limiting the player's information could go a long way towards getting around the advantages of historical hindsight. When you take the role of Manstein on the Don, you know the Red Army has tricks up it's sleeves from history. You might not know that Foreign Armies East / Rossler / Lucy sent you false details on those tricks in your situation reports while tipping those plans to the Soviets, to give just one example of what design could do.

Anyway, paper games have a very hard time simulating these types of issues; it's time to move on from the paper model in strategic wargaming.

[Numdydar]

The best non-IGUGO operational I have played is ToaW III. The best tactical is Flashpoint Campaigns (which is WWIII, not II) Strategic is going to be WitP AE [:)] Of course if you want individual people, then any Battles fox X will work or Panzer Command. But then small unit games tend not be use this model anyway.

Of course these are just my opinions and I am sure others will have differing thoughts [:)]

[Numdydar]

ORIGINAL: Zartacla

ORIGINAL: Numdydar


Of course if you wanted the game fixes to be further along, then you can do what I do and report things as I find them like others do. Who knows with your involvement in helping out we could have an AI by now [:D]

You seriously need to stop with this. I'm a customer, not an employee and not a beta tester. My sole responsibility in this is to give Matrix money. Matrix responsibility is to give me the product as advertised. I have lived up to my ONLY responsibility in this contract, Matrix has not, and has shown little interest in making it right.

That aside, because I do want the product I purchased to work as intended and for the development to continue on to include the features that were advertised as part of the game but are as of yet not even being worked on, I report bugs. I reported the bug in question over a year ago, and it has been reported repeatedly since then. Same with peacekeepers (for which there IS NO WORKAROUND) and several others. Matrix or Steve decided not to fix those bugs before moving on to Netplay, so forgive me (or don't, I don't really care if this offends you or not) if I don't share your smug certainty that everything will work out in the end.

Yes, I feel entitled to rant, and I think others who are upset about the state of the game are equally entitled to their anger. You're entitled to be an apologist if it makes you happy. But don't expect the rest of us to just say "oh, well if a few of the beta testers and fan boys think it's all hunky dory we'll just suck it up and be glad we donated money to a hobby project even if we thought we were buying a finished game".

How cool would it be if a few thousand people donated 100 bucks to me so I could pursue my hobbies?

Tell me how you really feel [:)]

I already stated in my post that I understood that some people would not want to feel like they were beta testers after buying a product. Nor did I say anything about you should not rant/be upstate/etc. on the forum.

You think it is terrible to have spent this much money and you still feel like you have not gotten the game you paid for. I happen to agree with you believe it or not.

The difference is I really do not expect to ever get any PC game that I pay for to be what I expect it to be. It certainly helps keep my expectations low so when I get a turkey it is not the end of the world.

I bought WiF on release, stopped playing while the issues were resolved. Posted a few bug reports, etc. Even with my off and on playing I still feel I got what I paid for and have definitely have gotten my monies worth. You obviously feel that you have not gotten anything out of your purchase. That does not make me right and you wrong or visa versa. It just means we disagree. Which is fine.

To me though I would much rather have WiF released than still be waiting for it. At least now most of the issues are known, and will eventually all be fixed. Along with others that remain to be discovered.

How much longer would you wanted to wait? Two years? Three? Would you then be complaining about why the release was taking so long? If you go back in the forum, you will find threads with people complaining very vocally about the release. They wanted it now.

So if you were in charge and people were constantly complaining about releasing the game what would you have done? Tell them to wait just a few more years? So it would be 12 years in development? With no one getting paid? And we would still have similar bugs and issues regardless, maybe not as many or as severe but who knows? Regadless of how long the development time takes there is no way a game like this would not release with issues given the limited size of the testing team. Like it or not, it is just the way the business model works for games like these.

Even War in the West still have VPs for cities messed up since launch and is just getting fixed. Which you would think is a pretty important thing to make sure was correct at launch.

This is not apologetic. It is just stating the facts of how wargames with 1-3 people developing them have to operate. If anyone had a better business model where everyone can still make money it would have been used by now. But since it has not, then we are left with all of us paying customers helping out to further the hobby and support the small number of people making these games.

Again, no harm, no foul for those that feel that as paying customers you should not have to do that. But I just accept this 'extra beta' testing as part of the 'extra' price I have to pay in order for these kinds of games to continue to be made. But that is just me [:)]

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Numdydar
How much longer would you wanted to wait? Two years? Three? Would you then be complaining about why the release was taking so long? If you go back in the forum, you will find threads with people complaining very vocally about the release. They wanted it now.

Frankly, I could have waited an eternity for this game to be released, since I'd never heard of it until it was released, and I doubt that I'm alone on this.

As for the people complaining about the release and wanting it "now", sounds like they'd have been perfect beta testers, maybe Matrix could even have charged people for the privilege, if they'd advertised it as a beta rather than commercial release.

[Numdydar]

That was suggested [:)]. A few actually did become beta testers. Then at least they stopped complaining and wondering what was going on [:D]

I also agree that Matrix would have been much better served if the release of WiF was called early access or something like that. But as Erik has stated, they were unaware that there was this many issues on release and thought that the outstanding issues that were known could be fixed very quickly. Both assumptions were incorrect as it turns out [:(]

[76mm]

OK, it sounds like lessons learned for everyone. For me, no more board game conversions until I'm pretty much certain that the game is finished and that I'll like it...

[bo]

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

That was suggested [:)]. A few actually did become beta testers. Then at least they stopped complaining and wondering what was going on [:D]

I also agree that Matrix would have been much better served if the release of WiF was called early access or something like that. But as Erik has stated, they were unaware that there was this many issues on release and thought that the outstanding issues that were known could be fixed very quickly. Both assumptions were incorrect as it turns out [:(]

So true Nummy, I made crussdaddy look like an angel some years back with my stupid ranting and raving about no AI etc., they shut me up by bringing me into the beta testing team and had me sign a NDS form [:(] OUCH [:@]

Bo

[Centuur]

ORIGINAL: bo

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

That was suggested [:)]. A few actually did become beta testers. Then at least they stopped complaining and wondering what was going on [:D]

I also agree that Matrix would have been much better served if the release of WiF was called early access or something like that. But as Erik has stated, they were unaware that there was this many issues on release and thought that the outstanding issues that were known could be fixed very quickly. Both assumptions were incorrect as it turns out [:(]

So true Nummy, I made crussdaddy look like an angel some years back with my stupid ranting and raving about no AI etc., they shut me up by bringing me into the beta testing team and had me sign a NDS form [:(] OUCH [:@]

Bo

But Bo, don't you know that form did expire some months ago? Now, you, being the Nestor among the beta test team, can write anything you like in here. [&:]

How about the time that... Or the noise we made when... Or, or, or... To be honest, the forums of the past sometimes look like a soap opera.... [:D]


But to come back on what the paying customer (in this case Mr. Zartacla) is saying: he is right. He didn't get his money's worth out of the game, and neither did anyone else who paid for it (even if they say they are having a lot of fun with the game already)...

That is the truth and I don't like it at all. But we can't change what has happened, can we?

So lets hope Steve's health stays OK. If it does, this game will slowly but surely proceed towards the awesome game it will be, when it is finished. At that moment, we can say: finally: the customer gets the reward from his money spend, allthough it is a little late in coming...

[bo]

ORIGINAL: Centuur

ORIGINAL: bo

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

That was suggested [:)]. A few actually did become beta testers. Then at least they stopped complaining and wondering what was going on [:D]

I also agree that Matrix would have been much better served if the release of WiF was called early access or something like that. But as Erik has stated, they were unaware that there was this many issues on release and thought that the outstanding issues that were known could be fixed very quickly. Both assumptions were incorrect as it turns out [:(]

So true Nummy, I made crussdaddy look like an angel some years back with my stupid ranting and raving about no AI etc., they shut me up by bringing me into the beta testing team and had me sign a NDS form [:(] OUCH [:@]

Bo

But Bo, don't you know that form did expire some months ago? Now, you, being the Nestor among the beta test team, can write anything you like in here. [&:]

How about the time that... Or the noise we made when... Or, or, or... To be honest, the forums of the past sometimes look like a soap opera.... [:D]


But to come back on what the paying customer (in this case Mr. Zartacla) is saying: he is right. He didn't get his money's worth out of the game, and neither did anyone else who paid for it (even if they say they are having a lot of fun with the game already)...

That is the truth and I don't like it at all. But we can't change what has happened, can we?

So lets hope Steve's health stays OK. If it does, this game will slowly but surely proceed towards the awesome game it will be, when it is finished. At that moment, we can say: finally: the customer gets the reward from his money spend, allthough it is a little late in coming...

Wait a minute Peter, you mean I can now say anything I want without recrimination from Matrix now. WOW! Did not know that [:(] Okay I am gonna let loose, I hate AI's, I love PBEM, I love netplay, I love solitaire, I love World in flames, I think Steve's big problem was rushing this game along too fast, not taking his time in the last nine years. [:D] Ok just kidding, things are starting to look up hopefully [&o]

Bo

[Joseignacio]

[X(][:D][:D][:D]

[Zorachus99]

This bug actually does suck.

I recently did an attack in winter, with winterized units bonus, a motorized engineer, without using the engineer bonus, and the game didn't enforce any loss.

We could have spent 10-15 minutes looking through the rulebook to find out what unit takes precedence, but we decided to use the instructions on the screen which said I should lose a motorized unit. I still don't know what unit takes precedence, but that is how the game is programmed. If my opponent destroys the wrong unit 'by accident' I can't go back. The die rolls will be different, the air-to-air combat will have a different result, and the results will substantially change the game.

I'm a bit surprised that this combat bug can exist for so long.

So yes, this bug is screwing up games already.

[Joseignacio]

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

This bug actually does suck.

I recently did an attack in winter, with winterized units bonus, a motorized engineer, without using the engineer bonus, and the game didn't enforce any loss.

We could have spent 10-15 minutes looking through the rulebook to find out what unit takes precedence, but we decided to use the instructions on the screen which said I should lose a motorized unit. I still don't know what unit takes precedence, but that is how the game is programmed. If my opponent destroys the wrong unit 'by accident' I can't go back. The die rolls will be different, the air-to-air combat will have a different result, and the results will substantially change the game.

I'm a bit surprised that this combat bug can exist for so long.

So yes, this bug is screwing up games already.

From Raw 7:

"If an ENG provides any benefits in an attack, it always suffers the first loss (even before white print units attacking in winter)."

22.4 Optional units
22.4.1 Divisions (AsA/MiF/PoliF option 2)

[Zorachus99]

ORIGINAL: Joseignacio

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

This bug actually does suck.

I recently did an attack in winter, with winterized units bonus, a motorized engineer, without using the engineer bonus, and the game didn't enforce any loss.

We could have spent 10-15 minutes looking through the rulebook to find out what unit takes precedence, but we decided to use the instructions on the screen which said I should lose a motorized unit. I still don't know what unit takes precedence, but that is how the game is programmed. If my opponent destroys the wrong unit 'by accident' I can't go back. The die rolls will be different, the air-to-air combat will have a different result, and the results will substantially change the game.

I'm a bit surprised that this combat bug can exist for so long.

So yes, this bug is screwing up games already.

From Raw 7:

"If an ENG provides any benefits in an attack, it always suffers the first loss (even before white print units attacking in winter)."

22.4 Optional units
22.4.1 Divisions (AsA/MiF/PoliF option 2)

I'm not certain, but I'm pretty sure you are incorrect, at least on the 2d10 table.

The combat is in a city hex, where the defender has called blitz.

If an an engineer attacks the city, does that count as a benefit? I do not see a way to decline the benefit of negating the city bonus. Does this mean engineer must be the first loss for all city attacks?
Or, is the engineer required to die, when he is using his crossing rivers ability instead?
If one of the units is a Winterized Mech units, should it be destroyed before the engineer? The has a pop-up that tells me to destroy that winterized unit first, but actual combat form tells me to lose a mot or arm.

But, honestly, this isn't a complicated decision at all. Go ahead and have 5 people read the rules in a room alone, and then ask them to see if they all have it right. I've sat at a table many times for 15-30-45-60 minutes trying to resolve 'how' a rule works. I bought this game to help me with these mechanics and requirements. I am not going to waste my time doing it again for a game which should automate it to the point of at least not allowing the player to cheat / make a mistake.

There is a right way, but I don't think it was the one you offer Jose. Thanks for trying at least. Not trying to murder someone trying to help.