No rants please just your opinions

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

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

No rants please just your opinions

Post by bo »

There is no one on these forums that is more disappointed about MWIF than me, I just cannot pretend that I enjoy this game as it is. I am totally commited to the AI as I have always been and have taken heat over it as to priorites like which should be done first.

As a subpar beta tester [many tester here way more knowledgeable about the game than me] I have been on the inside watching Steve create this masterpiece of a game, his dedication is beyond belief, his ability to create the images on the screen that we see is beyond my comprehension at least for me. My problem is that I am a very impatient person and my age hurts me in waiting to see if this game ever comes to fruitation.

To watch on screen the various stunning units in the game of all nations in combat the beautiful map created by Steve is actually awsome. The myriad of all the rules that makes this game the finest computer war game ever created is beyond the pale. I love this game and hate it at the same time,

WHY?

It sits in front me a challenge to conquer the world with whatever nation I have under ny control, to fight WW2 over on the computer is a players dream.
I have purchased many Matrix's games but they all sit on my "no play anymore shelf" This was my game ever since the day in 2005 that I noticed a little post about how Matrix bought a game called WIF from ADG, as time went on and a forum opemed the game got larger and larger and I appreciarted more and more Steve's and Matrix input.

Steve has done the best that he couild with rules that Einstein could not have put into use. A possible solution is to remove the rules that are causing conflict in the game at least for now, now of course that would not be the WIF board game many have fallen in love with and I understand that and I will take heat over it.

I see in front of me this tremendous,fantastic work of art that outside of solo is unplayable at leasrt for now, the rules are hurting netplay and might be making a good idea like the AI just a thought in our minds.

I have no ideas how we get out of the rut where we are in, other then perservere, which is not on my agenda. There are too many give and takes in this game that has totally taken PBEM out of the picture and most likely will never be implemented.

Solution, I am not capable to come up with a good solution, keener minds here could do more in that area than I could.

I did have one thought, streamline the game, get the game up and running, reject the rules that are causing Steve the headaches for the moment, make the game simplistic for the moment, a simplistic netplay, a simplistic AI for only one reason to watch Steves beautiful Nato counters roar in combat across this beautiful map he created.

As time goes on if Steve is willing, add in the rules that have caused the most problems in the past, I suppose that half of a loaf is better than no loaf, to the wondeful posters here who say they enjoy the game I say great more power to you but in reality it is not what you paid hard earned money for.

If for some reason Steve and Matrix feel this opinion is absurd, then I stand corrected and say to them release the game to another company and let them make a simplistic version of the game with an AI. Even though I feel no company or programmer would want to go through what Steve went through to get every WIF rule perfect.

I write this with the deepest respect to Steve, Erik, and Matrix for their endeavour to bring this game to you players, you players surely deseve a clean well run bug free Solo, Netplay, and AI game of MWIF.

I trully love this game or I would not have taken the trouble or the heat or the time to write this. I will try to help Steve in any way I can but my heart is no longer into this, a change must be made.

To all the posters out there who have trusted me through the years thank you to the others well, I guess I let you down and to you I apologize.

Devoted to MWIF

Bo

Bill Bowen

bowenw1@verizon.net



AlbertN
Posts: 4201
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 3:44 pm
Location: Italy

RE: No rants please just your opinions

Post by AlbertN »

The product is sold as a computer version of World in Flames.
The moment rules are simplified it's not anymore that game, but it's a Matrix version of World in Flames.

I believe as well there could be other issues related to licensing or so - the moment the game stops to be WiF proper but it turns into a game that copied lots of WiF aspects into it.

But in the end of the day my opinion is that the AI should not even be accounted for. Tabletop games do not have an AI - and this is a tabletop game.
Even the strategy games which have an AI (Grand scope strategy games such as Hearts of Iron for example) have absolute crap AI. And I honestly believe for how a programmer is skilled, to prepare an AI that knows all the situations that could create at once with the variables of this game is simply impossible (at least for the degree of budgets for computer gaming, if then we start to think of an War Simulator for the Pentagon like in the movie Wargames, that is another tale).

I admit, the game should have never been advertised for AI - besides maybe an AI for Barbarossa and Guadalcanal map; and only with a predesignated setup - for training purposes for players. (But that is already a grand shot).

I have my own sources of frustrations - mainly the fact WiF is stuck with the current version, which from a tabletop gamer perspective will make it "obsolete" compared to the new version of rules (which adds balance, new stuff, and in general are the "up to date" rules).

There, my opinions.
User avatar
Cataphract88
Posts: 729
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 8:02 am
Location: Britannia

RE: No rants please just your opinions

Post by Cataphract88 »

I think there is a lot of mileage in what Bo says; a streamlined version of the game, which expands over time isn't such a bad idea. It's what a lot of game designers are doing at the moment, anyway!
Richard
Numdydar
Posts: 3271
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:56 pm

RE: No rants please just your opinions

Post by Numdydar »

But that would require a different contract than what currently exists. Since ADG owns the IP rights is seriously doubt they would be willing since it would dilute the WiF brand.

WiF Blitz could be used as a substitute for this game, but then people are complaining about how it takes too many short cuts [:D]

The issue is that aside from the optional rules everything else is so integrated with everything else. As an example, supply has caused some major bugs in the game. So would anyone here want to play a WiF game without supply being considered? How about naval interception? Or any of the other areas that have caused issues?

Many here have expressed frustration with some of the optional rules missing. I can't imagine what people would say if core rules were missing in order to 'speed' things along.

Bo you say you love WiF. But what you suggest doing would not make WiF. It would a different game that would not have everything you love about this game. I cannot imagine that you would be remotely happy with the product that you suggest to be made. Even though you say you would be.

Also even if what you suggest was started today, it would not make things any faster and/or easier for Steve. Since all the work already done would need to be reworked. I'd much rather have things progress as they are versus going backwards from here.
bo
Posts: 4175
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:52 pm

RE: No rants please just your opinions

Post by bo »

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

But that would require a different contract than what currently exists. Since ADG owns the IP rights is seriously doubt they would be willing since it would dilute the WiF brand.

WiF Blitz could be used as a substitute for this game, but then people are complaining about how it takes too many short cuts [:D]

The issue is that aside from the optional rules everything else is so integrated with everything else. As an example, supply has caused some major bugs in the game. So would anyone here want to play a WiF game without supply being considered? How about naval interception? Or any of the other areas that have caused issues?

Many here have expressed frustration with some of the optional rules missing. I can't imagine what people would say if core rules were missing in order to 'speed' things along.

Bo you say you love WiF. But what you suggest doing would not make WiF. It would a different game that would not have everything you love about this game. I cannot imagine that you would be remotely happy with the product that you suggest to be made. Even though you say you would be.

Also even if what you suggest was started today, it would not make things any faster and/or easier for Steve. Since all the work already done would need to be reworked. I'd much rather have things progress as they are versus going backwards from here.

Do not disagree with anything you are saying Nummy, persoanlly never thought of the contract with ADG good point, but I guarantee Harry Rowland is foaming in his Australian beer [dont know the brand] as he watches a game that is 10 years in the making and nowheres ready for netplay and no AI in sight. At this point I do not care if it looks like WIF or not, you know the trees for the forest comment.

And sorry to disappoint you Nummy but I would be very happy to play you in netplay or the AI for practice if you were not available in the above forum of play.

I guess my point might be if no one ever heard of WIF or there never was a WIF and Steve made up a game called MWIF with his own rules like Gary Grigsby does and he was not stuck with the mandatory rules of an WIF and you played this game as it looks and feels like what Steve has created so far in looks I think it would be the finest computer war game ever made IMO.

I would love to see MWIF in all it's glory too but I am afraid that is years down the road and I do not personally have years down the road so maybe, just maybe I am being a little selfish and for that I apologize.

Bo
bo
Posts: 4175
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:52 pm

RE: No rants please just your opinions

Post by bo »

ORIGINAL: Cohen

The product is sold as a computer version of World in Flames.
The moment rules are simplified it's not anymore that game, but it's a Matrix version of World in Flames.

I believe as well there could be other issues related to licensing or so - the moment the game stops to be WiF proper but it turns into a game that copied lots of WiF aspects into it.

But in the end of the day my opinion is that the AI should not even be accounted for. Tabletop games do not have an AI - and this is a tabletop game.
Even the strategy games which have an AI (Grand scope strategy games such as Hearts of Iron for example) have absolute crap AI. And I honestly believe for how a programmer is skilled, to prepare an AI that knows all the situations that could create at once with the variables of this game is simply impossible (at least for the degree of budgets for computer gaming, if then we start to think of an War Simulator for the Pentagon like in the movie Wargames, that is another tale).

I admit, the game should have never been advertised for AI - besides maybe an AI for Barbarossa and Guadalcanal map; and only with a predesignated setup - for training purposes for players. (But that is already a grand shot).

I have my own sources of frustrations - mainly the fact WiF is stuck with the current version, which from a tabletop gamer perspective will make it "obsolete" compared to the new version of rules (which adds balance, new stuff, and in general are the "up to date" rules).

There, my opinions.

Appreciate your opinion, very down to earth and no animosity in it just feelings.
You are aware arent you that this is the first game in Matrix's history to release a game with no AI and the strong possibilty of never releasing an AI for this game. This is not a table top game, this is a computer game, if you want to play your table top game fine, I never liked them and never will.

Again a contract mentioned, I am sure Harry Rowland would be glad to change the contract so he and Matrix could make a few dollars out of this game.

As far as the ability of an AI I am conviced that Steve would build a very viable AI, but if we cant get the netplay to get through a turn or two at this point in time I guess there is no reason to have an AI.

There must be a reason when Matrix and Battlefront and John Tiller etc. put AI's in every game they put on the market, but then maybe they have no idea how to market a game [:(] About an AI, very good, good, soso, or bad at least it gives me something to do when I have no one to play and it allows me to play when I want to play and not play solo which after the hundreth time it gets, shall we say boring

Bo
bo
Posts: 4175
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:52 pm

RE: No rants please just your opinions

Post by bo »

ORIGINAL: cataphract88

I think there is a lot of mileage in what Bo says; a streamlined version of the game, which expands over time isn't such a bad idea. It's what a lot of game designers are doing at the moment, anyway!

Going along with that Richard, our Steve has been handed a game with more rules than sand on the shore, each rule might clash with another rule[do not know anything that Steve faces with this] When Grigsby makes up a game, that is the correct word he makes it up, and if something clashes while he is implementing a rule you know what he does, he deletes it and goes in another direction. He has no restraints on how to build his game.

Steve does not have that luxury, maybe sooner maybe later we will all come to the conclusion that this game is close to un-programmable in it's current format other than solitaire. If I am not mistaken I believe that many computer games come without netplay, but all have AI's [;)]

Bo
User avatar
wworld7
Posts: 1726
Joined: Tue Feb 25, 2003 2:57 am
Location: The Nutmeg State

RE: No rants please just your opinions

Post by wworld7 »

ORIGINAL: bo
ORIGINAL: cataphract88

I think there is a lot of mileage in what Bo says; a streamlined version of the game, which expands over time isn't such a bad idea. It's what a lot of game designers are doing at the moment, anyway!

Going along with that Richard, our Steve has been handed a game with more rules than sand on the shore, each rule might clash with another rule[do not know anything that Steve faces with this] When Grigsby makes up a game, that is the correct word he makes it up, and if something clashes while he is implementing a rule you know what he does, he deletes it and goes in another direction. He has no restraints on how to build his game.

Steve does not have that luxury, maybe sooner maybe later we will all come to the conclusion that this game is close to un-programmable in it's current format other than solitaire. If I am not mistaken I believe that many computer games come without netplay, but all have AI's [;)]

Bo

Bo,

Not all games come with an AI. Take a look at Decision Games "Computer War in Europe" which has no AI. I played the original board game and the PC version.

Happy Holidays,

Flipper
Flipper
bo
Posts: 4175
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:52 pm

RE: No rants please just your opinions

Post by bo »

ORIGINAL: flipperwasirish

ORIGINAL: bo
ORIGINAL: cataphract88

I think there is a lot of mileage in what Bo says; a streamlined version of the game, which expands over time isn't such a bad idea. It's what a lot of game designers are doing at the moment, anyway!

Going along with that Richard, our Steve has been handed a game with more rules than sand on the shore, each rule might clash with another rule[do not know anything that Steve faces with this] When Grigsby makes up a game, that is the correct word he makes it up, and if something clashes while he is implementing a rule you know what he does, he deletes it and goes in another direction. He has no restraints on how to build his game.

Steve does not have that luxury, maybe sooner maybe later we will all come to the conclusion that this game is close to un-programmable in it's current format other than solitaire. If I am not mistaken I believe that many computer games come without netplay, but all have AI's [;)]

Bo

Bo,

Not all games come with an AI. Take a look at Decision Games "Computer War in Europe" which has no AI. I played the original board game and the PC version.

Happy Holidays,

Flipper

Gee thanks flipper for finding me that one, deeply appreciated,[:(] could you please show me another one without an AI. Thank you in advance[;)]

Bo
User avatar
alexvand
Posts: 386
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 1:04 am
Location: Canada

RE: No rants please just your opinions

Post by alexvand »

Any decision like this would need to have been made 2 decades ago when development on this project first started. (Not exaggerating about the 2 decades. I heard the first rumours of a computer WiF when I graduated from college in 1995.)

I think this ship has sailed.

I'm going to keep hoping that Steve manages to pull it off. I'll help as much as I can by playing when I can and sending in bug reports for whatever I find.

The only suggestion I might have is that the AI be designed with a very specific subset of the optional rules. That way coding the AI will be easier. If you want to play with an AI you would have to play with the pre-selected optional rules.
bo
Posts: 4175
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:52 pm

RE: No rants please just your opinions

Post by bo »

ORIGINAL: alex_van_d

Any decision like this would need to have been made 2 decades ago when development on this project first started. (Not exaggerating about the 2 decades. I heard the first rumours of a computer WiF when I graduated from college in 1995.)

I think this ship has sailed.

I'm going to keep hoping that Steve manages to pull it off. I'll help as much as I can by playing when I can and sending in bug reports for whatever I find.

The only suggestion I might have is that the AI be designed with a very specific subset of the optional rules. That way coding the AI will be easier. If you want to play with an AI you would have to play with the pre-selected optional rules.

The ship has sailed alex no question about that,[:@] wow 1995, I started to notice it again about 2005 and then lost it from my point until 2007 and have been here ever since, and appreciate your effort about reporting bugs, but truthfully I will take the AI any way I can get it.[;)]
Extraneous
Posts: 1810
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 1:58 am

RE: No rants please just your opinions

Post by Extraneous »

ORIGINAL: bo

There is no one on these forums that is more disappointed about MWIF than me.


Nope bo.

I think I'm more disappointed than you and have been for a longer time.


No rants (and I have a heavy list of em) so I'll leave it at that.

University of Science Music and Culture (USMC) class of 71 and 72 ~ Extraneous (AKA Mziln)
User avatar
paulderynck
Posts: 8356
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 5:27 pm
Location: Canada

RE: No rants please just your opinions

Post by paulderynck »

ORIGINAL: Cohen

The product is sold as a computer version of World in Flames.
The moment rules are simplified it's not anymore that game, but it's a Matrix version of World in Flames.

I believe as well there could be other issues related to licensing or so - the moment the game stops to be WiF proper but it turns into a game that copied lots of WiF aspects into it.

But in the end of the day my opinion is that the AI should not even be accounted for. Tabletop games do not have an AI - and this is a tabletop game.
Even the strategy games which have an AI (Grand scope strategy games such as Hearts of Iron for example) have absolute crap AI. And I honestly believe for how a programmer is skilled, to prepare an AI that knows all the situations that could create at once with the variables of this game is simply impossible (at least for the degree of budgets for computer gaming, if then we start to think of an War Simulator for the Pentagon like in the movie Wargames, that is another tale).

I admit, the game should have never been advertised for AI - besides maybe an AI for Barbarossa and Guadalcanal map; and only with a predesignated setup - for training purposes for players. (But that is already a grand shot).

I have my own sources of frustrations - mainly the fact WiF is stuck with the current version, which from a tabletop gamer perspective will make it "obsolete" compared to the new version of rules (which adds balance, new stuff, and in general are the "up to date" rules).

There, my opinions.
+1

And BTW: "No rants please, just your opinions" but you forgot to add: "and I'll dispute anyone's who doesn't agree with me".
...to the wondeful posters here who say they enjoy the game I say great more power to you but in reality it is not what you paid hard earned money for.
Nobody put out hard earned cash for MWiF with an AI. It was announced (and still is advertised) that way. Making that implication is misleading to anyone relatively new to this forum.

And claims that every single game made by Matrix has an AI are also untrue, as has been pointed out to you in the past when such claims were made. An example is given but apparently one does not disprove "every". How many does it take to do so?
Paul
pzgndr
Posts: 3486
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2004 12:51 am
Location: Maryland

RE: No rants please just your opinions

Post by pzgndr »

ORIGINAL: cataphract88
I think there is a lot of mileage in what Bo says; a streamlined version of the game, which expands over time isn't such a bad idea. It's what a lot of game designers are doing at the moment, anyway!

In some ways, this is what the future PBEM simplifications should do. Perhaps this could also apply to AI games as an option, if that helps, whenever the AI is implemented. And I am a bit more optimistic than others that a challenging AI can and will be implemented, eventually...
Bill Macon
Empires in Arms Developer
Strategic Command Developer
bo
Posts: 4175
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:52 pm

RE: No rants please just your opinions

Post by bo »

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: Cohen

The product is sold as a computer version of World in Flames.
The moment rules are simplified it's not anymore that game, but it's a Matrix version of World in Flames.

I believe as well there could be other issues related to licensing or so - the moment the game stops to be WiF proper but it turns into a game that copied lots of WiF aspects into it.

But in the end of the day my opinion is that the AI should not even be accounted for. Tabletop games do not have an AI - and this is a tabletop game.
Even the strategy games which have an AI (Grand scope strategy games such as Hearts of Iron for example) have absolute crap AI. And I honestly believe for how a programmer is skilled, to prepare an AI that knows all the situations that could create at once with the variables of this game is simply impossible (at least for the degree of budgets for computer gaming, if then we start to think of an War Simulator for the Pentagon like in the movie Wargames, that is another tale).

I admit, the game should have never been advertised for AI - besides maybe an AI for Barbarossa and Guadalcanal map; and only with a predesignated setup - for training purposes for players. (But that is already a grand shot).

I have my own sources of frustrations - mainly the fact WiF is stuck with the current version, which from a tabletop gamer perspective will make it "obsolete" compared to the new version of rules (which adds balance, new stuff, and in general are the "up to date" rules).

There, my opinions.
+1

And BTW: "No rants please, just your opinions" but you forgot to add: "and I'll dispute anyone's who doesn't agree with me".
...to the wondeful posters here who say they enjoy the game I say great more power to you but in reality it is not what you paid hard earned money for.
Nobody put out hard earned cash for MWiF with an AI. It was announced (and still is advertised) that way. Making that implication is misleading to anyone relatively new to this forum.

And claims that every single game made by Matrix has an AI are also untrue, as has been pointed out to you in the past when such claims were made. An example is given but apparently one does not disprove "every". How many does it take to do so?

Tell that BS to the people who paid well over a $100 US and got zilch in the way of netplay and an AI. I expect no different from you whenever the AI is mentioned. You just ranted paul loud and clear as usual. I have always tried to be courteous to your opinions whether I ageed with them or not, too bad that does not work both ways.

Bo
bo
Posts: 4175
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:52 pm

RE: No rants please just your opinions

Post by bo »

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

ORIGINAL: cataphract88
I think there is a lot of mileage in what Bo says; a streamlined version of the game, which expands over time isn't such a bad idea. It's what a lot of game designers are doing at the moment, anyway!

In some ways, this is what the future PBEM simplifications should do. Perhaps this could also apply to AI games as an option, if that helps, whenever the AI is implemented. And I am a bit more optimistic than others that a challenging AI can and will be implemented, eventually...


Plus 1

Bo
bo
Posts: 4175
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:52 pm

RE: No rants please just your opinions

Post by bo »

ORIGINAL: Extraneous

ORIGINAL: bo

There is no one on these forums that is more disappointed about MWIF than me.


Nope bo.

I think I'm more disappointed than you and have been for a longer time.


No rants (and I have a heavy list of em) so I'll leave it at that.


Sorry more than me[:(], no way Extraneous you were on the inside once and I know you know what I am talking about. There has to be a way to streamline this game and get it where it should be.

Bo
bo
Posts: 4175
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:52 pm

RE: No rants please just your opinions

Post by bo »

ORIGINAL: flipperwasirish

ORIGINAL: bo
ORIGINAL: cataphract88

I think there is a lot of mileage in what Bo says; a streamlined version of the game, which expands over time isn't such a bad idea. It's what a lot of game designers are doing at the moment, anyway!

Going along with that Richard, our Steve has been handed a game with more rules than sand on the shore, each rule might clash with another rule[do not know anything that Steve faces with this] When Grigsby makes up a game, that is the correct word he makes it up, and if something clashes while he is implementing a rule you know what he does, he deletes it and goes in another direction. He has no restraints on how to build his game.

Steve does not have that luxury, maybe sooner maybe later we will all come to the conclusion that this game is close to un-programmable in it's current format other than solitaire. If I am not mistaken I believe that many computer games come without netplay, but all have AI's [;)]

Bo

Bo,

Not all games come with an AI. Take a look at Decision Games "Computer War in Europe" which has no AI. I played the original board game and the PC version.

Happy Holidays,

Flipper

Wow I messed up flipper, but I think you knew I was referring to Matrix games as I just checked out everyone of them, and all have an AI. The game you mentioned is not a Matrix game right flipper, I guess to play safe with certain people I will rephrase it, I believe that 99% of Matrix games have an AI[;)]

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

RE: No rants please just your opinions

Post by paulderynck »

As Flipper rightly points out later on here (I too can edit my old posts to try and make them look correct), it really makes no difference how many Matrix games have Netplay and/or an AI.

MWiF is it's own case.
Paul
User avatar
paulderynck
Posts: 8356
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 5:27 pm
Location: Canada

RE: No rants please just your opinions

Post by paulderynck »

ORIGINAL: bo
ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: Cohen

The product is sold as a computer version of World in Flames.
The moment rules are simplified it's not anymore that game, but it's a Matrix version of World in Flames.

I believe as well there could be other issues related to licensing or so - the moment the game stops to be WiF proper but it turns into a game that copied lots of WiF aspects into it.

But in the end of the day my opinion is that the AI should not even be accounted for. Tabletop games do not have an AI - and this is a tabletop game.
Even the strategy games which have an AI (Grand scope strategy games such as Hearts of Iron for example) have absolute crap AI. And I honestly believe for how a programmer is skilled, to prepare an AI that knows all the situations that could create at once with the variables of this game is simply impossible (at least for the degree of budgets for computer gaming, if then we start to think of an War Simulator for the Pentagon like in the movie Wargames, that is another tale).

I admit, the game should have never been advertised for AI - besides maybe an AI for Barbarossa and Guadalcanal map; and only with a predesignated setup - for training purposes for players. (But that is already a grand shot).

I have my own sources of frustrations - mainly the fact WiF is stuck with the current version, which from a tabletop gamer perspective will make it "obsolete" compared to the new version of rules (which adds balance, new stuff, and in general are the "up to date" rules).

There, my opinions.
+1

And BTW: "No rants please, just your opinions" but you forgot to add: "and I'll dispute anyone's who doesn't agree with me".
...to the wondeful posters here who say they enjoy the game I say great more power to you but in reality it is not what you paid hard earned money for.
Nobody put out hard earned cash for MWiF with an AI. It was announced (and still is advertised) that way. Making that implication is misleading to anyone relatively new to this forum.

And claims that every single game made by Matrix has an AI are also untrue, as has been pointed out to you in the past when such claims were made. An example is given but apparently one does not disprove "every". How many does it take to do so?

Tell that BS to the people who paid well over a $100 US and got zilch in the way of netplay and an AI. I expect no different from you whenever the AI is mentioned. You just ranted paul loud and clear as usual. I have always tried to be courteous to your opinions whether I ageed with them or not, too bad that does not work both ways.

Bo
Wow, you proved my point in record setting time. Thank you.
Paul
Post Reply

Return to “World in Flames”