Matrix Games Forums

Pandora: Eclipse of Nashira gets release dateCommunity impressions of To End All WarsAgeod's To End All Wars is now availableTo End All Wars is now available!Deal of the Week: Field of GloryTo End All Wars: Video, AAR and Interview!Ageod's To End All Wars: Video, AAR and Interview!To End All Wars: Artillery Battle Academy 2: Eastern Front - End of Early Access Space Program Manager unveils its multiplayer modes
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

WiA findings

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Age of Muskets] >> Birth of America 2: Wars in America >> WiA findings Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
WiA findings - 9/15/2008 3:52:48 PM   
GShock


Posts: 1246
Joined: 12/9/2007
From: San Francisco, CA - USA
Status: offline
Hello fellow players,

I had written a report on a few bugs and glitches i found but my private messages were deemed inappropriate by the WiA coordinator since such problems have to be discussed in public improvement forums with a policy that, being a former beta, i find hard to understand.

I fail to see why i should post in public negative details about a game, except if in the gravest circumstances, thus hurting the producers and the publishers, since those monitoring the private beta boards should be aware of the difference in quality and quantity about the bugs being reported. I have written tomes, gospels and bibles on WiA and AACW on themes i had never seen anyone talk about in private, much less in public.

Anyway, I was told to find the courage to post on AgeOD's boards again but i turned down the proposal.

I can't post on the AgeOD's boards due to the horror i feel in having to deal with a few people, but occupying significant positions at AgeOD, who have badly disappointed me (to say the least). So, here's the report, in public as requested, but probably not on the forums AgeOD had expected.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Chasing Nathanael" scenario:

-British spawn an Augustine BN, which is a locked in place unit, in San Mateo instead of in St. Augustine. Obviously, this unit will perish due to lack of supplies and there's nothing the player may do since it's locked in place.

-Charlotte (Victor) has no siege icon.

-I have noticed the entrenchement level of every stack is unaffected by the army exact location in the region. Units and stacks in settlements should not be allowed to entrench. They either are in the trenches or in the settlement, not in both.

-Training officer attribute, I am really curious about this attribute speculating it's not working as intended, if working at all.
The tooltip says the leader will train up to 2 conscripts per month turning them into regular units. This would be really handy since the British need regular soldiers to garrison the objectives and strategic towns to make them accrue points...however, no noticeable change in experience, nor in unit type is visible by the end of the whole scenario either in stats, nor in typology nor in unit portrait design or color.

I left Gen. Randon (Training attribute 1) in place with MIL units and they didn't turn into anything at all. Now MIL definitely is made of conscripts so either the attribute doesn't work or it's unclear WHO is to be considered a conscript (trainable by attribute) and who isn't.
Partisans, Indians, Light Infantry, Dragoons?
Question is, if this attribute doesn't train MIL, then who does it train?


"Cornwallis' Campaign" scenario:

- Thicketty shows no siege icon.

- Battle report in most circumstances the tooltip showing unit ratings (off fire, def fire etc.) is blinking and it is unreadable.

- Right panel Commander's Rating, related to "Div-equipped" leaders (Watson's Legion and Tarleton for example) exceed the borders. Suggest abbreviation "Cmdr. Rating". This would fit. Same can be said with Lord Charles Cornwallis. Same could be said about "Ship of the line", Suggest "Hvy Warship".

-Exactly same bug as in AACW, Force march button is greyed out when leader is inactive but the button can be pressed anyway and the forced march is executed (its the opposite of what the tooltip says, inactive leaders should be unable to order force march).

-The troops spawning in Yorktown spawn with an average cohesion (standard foot infantry) of 76/71. I suppose that should be the opposite 71/76.

Pequot scenario:

-This scenario seems too unbalanced.
For a starter, the Pequot don't have strenght even to capture a settlement right away while the brits have Boston's stack, twice as strong as the Pequot player, furthenmore, the British also have the mohican allies.
The turning point is the arrival by event of a new British stack which spawns west of pequot in Hartford. I have razed this village to the ground during a test and this monster stack still arrived in Hartford (spawned like a mushroom out of the ground). I am not entirely sure this to be intended.
It also looks like the Boston general and the new general spawning in Hartford use the same portrait. If not identical they are very similar, too similar.
Maybe the event is bugged? Maybe there's an event calling in for reinforcements to Pequot which is not firing? I find it hard to think possible to hold 3 strategic towns + Pequot village with 4 total units (and 2 generals). Maybe the scenario is built to recreate the exact historical situation but in that case the description should not state this to be a balanced scenario.

Two months ago, after wasting a week only to convince AgeOD that good scenario descriptions are paramount, seeing that the descriptions have changed but again, they are totally inaccurate, my arms fell down. 2 months ago, one of their community members told me he resigned to make me understand the descriptions were correct because i wasn't capable of understanding. Perhaps I am just stupid but i kindly suggest anyone to play the Pequot scenario and then make his own mind on whether this scenario is balanced like he and the description say or unbalanced like i say.

-This pic shows a little problem arising when Hartford is captured and simultaneously the village of Misistuck is captured too. Native troops dissolve and the chief goes to the village but there's a spawned and captured (yet unmovable) supply with the name of UNIT_NAME_GBR_SUP2 as you see. Ignore DX render problem, it's me engaging fraps after the game and not before the game, luckily there's the printscreen feature.



Nouvelle Orleans scenario:

This scenario has some serious mess-ups.

Let’s begin with the easy things:
-The transport capacity of the British fleet is reported to be 96/82. This could be causing problems of stability, better add even a small transport and to make the things as they should be.
-The British 1st Scouting Squadron is missing a proper short name in the right pane. (displayed UNIT_SHORTNAME_G.)

The main issue is balance:
-With the whole forces deployed and no reinforcements coming, the british must conquer New Orleans, Baton Rouge and the fort behind new Orleans in just few turns.
Since this is impossible without reinforcements after the losses at New Orleans, with 30-day long turns you only have a few options available while needing to recover cohesion and fighting generals’ inactivity which prevents you to attack. The cohesion recovery compels you to camp for a full turn in defensive or passive mode, else be utterly destroyed by desertion or by enemy and with no hope of reinforcements. The british also need supplies and it takes half turn to build a depot and about half a turn to be totally resupplied. Since the turn is 30 days long, this means in both cases 1 turn (the other half turn is basically lost).

-AI issue:
Jackson’s army in Nouvelle Orleans tries every turn to reach Ft. St. Philip if British troops are present. This move takes longer than a month to execute but it appears that, in the following turn, the AI cancels the move and stays in NO with all its cohesion depleted. I have concluded the only possible way to win for the British is to arrive in NO exactly when Jackson’s army aborts its move and is low on cohesion. Exploiting the AI's glitches is not for me.

-Nasty error delivered to support:
I had a nasty error moving Berkham’s forces from St. Philip to fleet in bay activating at same time the distant landing feature towards NO. The move is From St.Phil to Biloxi Bay to New Orleans (via distant unload).
It appears out of the whole stack, only the Dragoons arrived in NO while the rest of the forces remained on the ship. I had expected a CTD but only an error was reported.

-There’s an erroneous behavior to triple check with the distant unload + bombard feature.
Useless to get down to the details, the conclusion is that when distant unload is selected the stack must only bomb the selected land zone and no other place, else the distant unload won’t work when more fleets and more amphibious assaults take place. As stated above, there's also a minor bug affecting distant unload alone when troops are not already on board the ship.

Things I noticed while playing as American:
-The British lose 60-0. They never even show up and, at the end of the scenario, there’s no british unit on the map. Possibly all dead to attrition. Unbelievable how this scenario could pass the QA with the american player having no enemy on the whole board.

-Move of a MIL unit from NO to Ft.St.Leon : NO to river area of NO to Ft. st. Louie (via distant unload) failed.

-Again the training issue: 1st Mississipi Infantry is trained in Baton Rouge with no training officer present at all. Presumably an XP increase since this was not a MIL unit originally.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At the light of what i found, in just 2 days of playtesting WiA's scenarios and, knowing what i know of AgeOD and its engine, I am not surprised to see such results in this product as well as I am aware it's not the lead DEV's fault.
The fact stunning me is that 2 months and 7 patches after the release, so many macroscopic bugs are still present in the scenarios. I can only begin to imagine what's lying ahead in the campaign...

It pains me knowing very well how much effort has been spent on it and it pains me twice to have had to post about it in public.
I couldn't care less about the money i spent on the game, all i see is that such poor display could have been spared if AgeOD had changed this policy of bland and superficial stress with which beta patches are tested.

Why i am not surprised?

Simple: after 13 months of constant patching, I've still got to see the Union AI doing an amphibious assault.
In the meanwhile, have a look at this screenshot of what's happening in June 62 while i siege Richmond.



One would think it proper and smart to learn from his own mistakes but this seemingly doesn't apply to AgeOD.

November the 11th is very close...but, to be honest, i don't think there's time to learn right now and, sadly, there's no worse deaf than one who doesn't want to listen.
Post #: 1
RE: WiA findings - 9/15/2008 9:01:40 PM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 32912
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline
Just to be clear, we have a good relationship with AGEOD and enjoy their games. We welcome posts here regarding their games of course and we are glad to see issues being reported so that they can be solved.

However, I find some of the comments you made about AGEOD to be very poor form. If you have a beef with them personally, post on their forums where they are much more likely to see it and be able to respond to you. You said you needed to find the courage to post there, well I hope you do. Based on my experience with them, your issue reports would be read, noted and quickly responded to and in a future update fixed.

Regards,

- Erik

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
Director of Product Development


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

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to GShock)
Post #: 2
RE: WiA findings - 9/16/2008 8:55:27 AM   
Hok


Posts: 3
Joined: 10/10/2007
From: Grenoble, France
Status: offline
Hi Gshock,

I take note of your reports, it would be better if you send it directly to me.

regards,

_____________________________

Age Studio Game Designer
BOA2 : Wars in America Project Manager

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 3
RE: WiA findings - 9/16/2008 9:04:43 AM   
GShock


Posts: 1246
Joined: 12/9/2007
From: San Francisco, CA - USA
Status: offline
I have no beef with anyone, Erik.

The negative comments are intended to change the attitude which causes these findings for the sake of everyone so that AgeOD may improve in the shortest possible time: you can't solve problems if you are afraid to talk about them and that's what i wanted to imply with those comments.

Rest assured, the comments have been read and answered already.

The time it took me to produce and document those bugs, as well as the time it took me to report them in private first and in public next, should be a fine proof of my good intentions. AgeOD and I are friends, have always been and will always be... at least on my part.

I expect to playtest WiA a little more this week-end and, since the comments have been read, there's no need to beat a dead horse in next reports.
We'll know if they did any good in a little less than 2 months anyway.

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 4
RE: WiA findings - 9/16/2008 10:35:53 AM   
lodilefty


Posts: 75
Joined: 7/28/2008
Status: offline
I will answer the technical issues presented here.
A similar response will be posted at AGEOD, with screen shots.

"Chasing Nathanael" scenario:

-British spawn an Augustine BN, which is a locked in place unit, in San Mateo instead of in St. Augustine. Obviously, this unit will perish due to lack of supplies and there's nothing the player may do since it's locked in place.


Fixed. Thank you.

-Charlotte (429Victor) has no siege icon.

OK in my installation

-Training officer attribute, I am really curious about this attribute speculating it's not working as intended, if working at all.
The tooltip says the leader will train up to 2 conscripts per month turning them into regular units. This would be really handy since the British need regular soldiers to garrison the objectives and strategic towns to make them accrue points...however, no noticeable change in experience, nor in unit type is visible by the end of the whole scenario either in stats, nor in typology nor in unit portrait design or color.

I left Gen. Randon (Training attribute 1) in place with MIL units and they didn't turn into anything at all. Now MIL definitely is made of conscripts so either the attribute doesn't work or it's unclear WHO is to be considered a conscript (trainable by attribute) and who isn't.
Partisans, Indians, Light Infantry, Dragoons?
Question is, if this attribute doesn't train MIL, then who does it train?


The attribute trains any unit with an upgrade defined.

Upgrades are OK in my installation.

Was Rawdon in command of the stack?
Did the units start and end the turn with Rawdon?
Did the stack remain motionless for the entire turn?
Did you get any 'Trained Infantry' messages in the turn messages?
You must also be in a region where you have >50% Military control.


"Cornwallis' Campaign" scenario:

Thicketty shows no siege icon.

It's OK in my installation
Were you in passive mode? Were there enemy units outside the structure?

-The troops spawning in Yorktown spawn with an average cohesion (standard foot infantry) of 76/71. I suppose that should be the opposite 71/76.
The commander of the stack gives a cohesion malus [penalty]. The units will lose the difference next turn [barring other effects]. The opposite effect will occur if a unit arrives with a leader that gives a cohesion bonus. AFAIK, AGEOD's AACW works the same.

Pequot scenario:

-a little problem arising when Hartford is captured and simultaneously the village of Misistuck is captured too. Native troops dissolve and the chief goes to the village but there's a spawned and captured (yet unmovable) supply with the name of UNIT_NAME_GBR_SUP2 as you see.


There was an engine bug recognizing 'NotEnemy', being fixed in next patch

The unit text string has been added.
The unit is immobile as it is “Goods and Stores”, consisting of some supply and immobile goods.

Re: balance.
It is not always the designers intent to create a scenario that can easily be won by either side, particularly in short scenarios. In this case, the Natives goal is to hold and raid. It is entirely possible to win by doing this. It is not always possible in every scenario to achieve total dominating victory by capturing everything and destroying everything.

Nouvelle Orleans scenario:


Let’s begin with the easy things:
-The transport capacity of the British fleet is reported to be 96/82. This could be causing problems of stability, better add even a small transport and to make the things as they should be.


I see 92/134


-The British 1st Scouting Squadron is missing a proper short name in the right pane. (displayed UNIT_SHORTNAME_G.)

Text string fixed Thank you

The main issue is balance:
It is not always the designers intent to create a scenario that can easily be won by either side, particularly in short scenarios. They are often history lessons [British lost at New Orleans due to severe logistics issues and time constraints]


-Nasty error delivered to support:
I had a nasty error moving Berkham’s forces from St. Philip to fleet in bay activating at same time the distant landing feature towards NO. The move is From St.Phil to Biloxi Bay to New Orleans (via distant unload).
It appears out of the whole stack, only the Dragoons arrived in NO while the rest of the forces remained on the ship. I had expected a CTD but only an error was reported.


I was unable to repeat this. Loading from shore, then distant unload is not supposed to happen. In my test, the troops loaded and no unload at all occurred. In another test, I loaded from Ft. St. Phillip, moved south and ordered distant unload at Ft. St. Leon. Troops loaded,the ships moved, but no unload was attempted. This is WAD.

-There’s an erroneous behavior to triple check with the distant unload + bombard feature.
Useless to get down to the details, the conclusion is that when distant unload is selected the stack must only bomb the selected land zone and no other place, else the distant unload won’t work when more fleets and more amphibious assaults take place. As stated above, there's also a minor bug affecting distant unload alone when troops are not already on board the ship.


This is WAD.
Bombard only works in region where move starts. Distant unload works in region at end.
I was able to bombard at first region, move, and successfully distant unload.


-Again the training issue: 1st Mississippi Infantry is trained in Baton Rouge with no training officer present at all. Presumably an XP increase since this was not a MIL unit originally.

Yes. 5% chance per level of experience checked each turn. [subject to same rules as TO: control, no movement, etc]

-Move of a MIL unit from NO to Ft.St.Leon : NO to river area of NO to Ft. st. Louie (via distant unload) failed.

Worked OK in my installation.

Thank you for you feedback.






< Message edited by hhaupt -- 9/16/2008 10:36:32 AM >


_____________________________

AGEOD Volunteer
Visit the AGE Wiki at http://www.ageod.net/agewiki/Main_Page

(in reply to GShock)
Post #: 5
RE: WiA findings - 9/16/2008 10:52:08 AM   
barker


Posts: 1210
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline
This is a great tool here, I have 2 sources of info , wheter good or bad, I like the fact that GShock said what he wanted and this forum dod not get locked down as other forums for similar content on other games. GShock I applaud your technical overview of the game and various aspects. I also applaud AGEOD for responding here. I understand the necessity to post on the ageod site but why does MATRIX still have this forum. It should read all post are redirected to the AGEOD site. This would be a proper way to handle it.

Thanks

_____________________________

games:
1. AGEOD Blue and Gray
2. John Tiller's Battleground Series
3. Combat Mission: Beyond Overlord
4. Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin
5. V for Victory Games
6. Silent Hunter III
7. Silent Hunter IV
8. Rise and Fall of the Third Re

(in reply to lodilefty)
Post #: 6
RE: WiA findings - 9/16/2008 1:33:09 PM   
GShock


Posts: 1246
Joined: 12/9/2007
From: San Francisco, CA - USA
Status: offline

I will not discuss anything on the AGEOD's boards but it is interesting to debate about the findings here.
@Barker: There are specific reasons why i don't deal on those forums anymore which i partially explained in the first post. These reasons do not include the editing of unpleasant or negative threads on behalf of the AgeOD's moderators as it is common (and just) practice to let everyone speak without censoring anything as it always should be in public discussions.
I repeat: I posted here because i had nowhere else to post. In private was rejected and in public I could only post here.

quote:

-Charlotte (429Victor) has no siege icon.

OK in my installation


It is likely that the siege icon spawns in the same location as the "pillaged countryside" icon. Try both Charlotte and Thicketty when the region is pillaged and you should see the icon missing. The tooltip correctly shows that the regions are besieged while no such icon appears on map.

quote:

Training officer attribute
The attribute trains any unit with an upgrade defined.

Upgrades are OK in my installation.

Was Rawdon in command of the stack?
Did the units start and end the turn with Rawdon?
Did the stack remain motionless for the entire turn?
Did you get any 'Trained Infantry' messages in the turn messages?
You must also be in a region where you have >50% Military control.


The region was Camden and the answer to all questions but the last one is yes. On the last one the answer is "likely". Standard foot unit was also present due to the need to accrue VP against the loyalty rule (which i like very much and approve).

I think you have listed the real mechanics of how this ability works.
However, this is what the tooltip says about the ability: If the commander, will train up to two regiments of Conscripts to regular soldier every turn. (from the AACW wiki).

Perhaps it would be a good idea to reform the tooltip (and the manual) so that it's not the forums telling the player what's going on but the game itself.

quote:

-The troops spawning in Yorktown spawn with an average cohesion (standard foot infantry) of 76/71. I suppose that should be the opposite 71/76.
The commander of the stack gives a cohesion malus [penalty].


If the maximum cohesion is 71, troops spawning with 76 would be at bonus, not penalty. Coming to think of it, this could be related to the "NM" situation close to victory as i don't recall the Yorktown leaders to have such abilities.
I would expect to read 76/76 and if there's an extra, 80/80 and so on but 76/71 makes little sense for a bonus.

quote:

Pequot scenario:

Re: balance.
It is not always the designers intent to create a scenario that can easily be won by either side, particularly in short scenarios. In this case, the Natives goal is to hold and raid. It is entirely possible to win by doing this. It is not always possible in every scenario to achieve total dominating victory by capturing everything and destroying everything.


I don't think the Pequot have strenghts and numbers to capture but 2 of the settlements relinquishing any defense but the fixed units. With the arrival of the monster stack in Hartford all the AI needs to do is to attack. If the Pequot have any possibility at all it is because the AI is not aggressive enough, despite total superiority and medium FOW advantage.

It looks to me a beautiful representation of a historical situation that really took place.
The only problem is that the scenario describes this situation as balanced but it is not.

quote:

Nouvelle Orleans scenario:


Let’s begin with the easy things:
-The transport capacity of the British fleet is reported to be 96/82. This could be causing problems of stability, better add even a small transport and to make the things as they should be.

I see 92/134


In order to simultaneously attack and bombard different regions (a thing that won't work unfortunately) many stacking and unstacking is required and in one of this i spotted this problem. Most certainly i was able to load on a fleet more factors than allowed. I searched the trashcan for the post-it notes but unfortunately it's been emptied. I ll try to reproduce it and hopefully document it this time.


quote:

The main issue is balance:
It is not always the designers intent to create a scenario that can easily be won by either side, particularly in short scenarios. They are often history lessons [British lost at New Orleans due to severe logistics issues and time constraints].


I agree and, as i said, i like this design choice. I'd just like to see the AI counter in some smart manner. The british must have the possibility to win like the Pequot, but not by exploiting the AI move abortion. If the AI didn't abort that move, it could be defeated without exploiting its loss of cohesion. If you think of it though, if a historical recreation fools gameplay, the scenario would not be very useful to the players. Following this doctrine then, the British stack at Yorktown should never arrive.
I'd like to walk a single path. If the scenarios are to recreate historical situations, then Pequot and New Orleans are ok (i presume) but Chasing Nathanael isn't. So, history or scenario gameplay? Either is ok with me but you can't walk both paths.

quote:

-Nasty error delivered to support:

I was unable to repeat this. Loading from shore, then distant unload is not supposed to happen. In my test, the troops loaded and no unload at all occurred. In another test, I loaded from Ft. St. Phillip, moved south and ordered distant unload at Ft. St. Leon. Troops loaded,the ships moved, but no unload was attempted. This is WAD.


I don't understand why this is WAD, i mean this should work as expected.
Without this move option, it would take 60 days to move from Ft. St. Philip to New Orleans: exactly 1 turn to load and 1 turn to unload. Too much for a bordering territories especially since it takes just 5 days to load and 5 days to unload. That's 50 days more than the british can afford in this scenario.

quote:

-There’s an erroneous behavior to triple check with the distant unload + bombard feature.

This is WAD.
Bombard only works in region where move starts. Distant unload works in region at end.
I was able to bombard at first region, move, and successfully distant unload.


I understand but bombardment should be used to support landing troops, not just bomb in support at the starting region.
The event taking place here:
Fleet A: bomb + move to tgt region + distant unload (only bomb and move executed)
Fleet B: bomb + unload in present region (all orders executed).

Goal should be to have Fleet A bomb the region where its distant unload takes place not where Fleet B is involved. In any case, Fleet A bombed Ft. Leon and moved to Biloxi bay but distant unload did NOT take place.


quote:

-Again the training issue: 1st Mississippi Infantry is trained in Baton Rouge with no training officer present at all.

Yes. 5% chance per level of experience checked each turn. [subject to same rules as TO: control, no movement, etc]


No training officer was present. It is possible that this unit was trained by leader in Ft. Petit Coquille. I don't remember right now if this leader has the training attribute. What i know for sure is that the leader stayed in ft. Coquille but the trained unit moved to Baton Rouge without him and was reported as having trained.

quote:

-Move of a MIL unit from NO to Ft.St.Leon : NO to river area of NO to Ft. st. Louie (via distant unload) failed.

Worked OK in my installation.


Didn't you say that: Loading from shore, then distant unload is not supposed to happen. This is WAD?

Let's just say it sometimes works and some other times doesn't. I am sure Hok will fix it and we will understand whether this move is allowed (and not working 100% times) or not allowed (and when it does there's an exploit on the engine).

Thanks for answering, i appreciate it.


(in reply to lodilefty)
Post #: 7
RE: WiA findings - 9/16/2008 2:37:55 PM   
Gray_Lensman


Posts: 640
Joined: 4/10/2003
Status: offline
<deleted> <point delivered>

< Message edited by Gray_Lensman -- 9/20/2008 11:03:40 PM >

(in reply to GShock)
Post #: 8
RE: WiA findings - 9/16/2008 3:37:58 PM   
EisenHammer


Posts: 428
Joined: 9/1/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: GShock

Nouvelle Orleans scenario:

Things I noticed while playing as American:
-The British lose 60-0. They never even show up and, at the end of the scenario, there’s no british unit on the map. Possibly all dead to attrition.

I can confirm this. I just played as the American side and the British and their fleet sailed to the East and out of the game, I never saw them again.

(in reply to GShock)
Post #: 9
RE: WiA findings - 9/16/2008 4:15:31 PM   
Hok


Posts: 3
Joined: 10/10/2007
From: Grenoble, France
Status: offline
@ Gshock : It will be easier for us to continue this discussion on our forum, all WiA players will be interested and not only Matrix community.

As long as your main goal is to enhance the game, I don't see any reason not to post on Ageod forums



_____________________________

Age Studio Game Designer
BOA2 : Wars in America Project Manager

(in reply to EisenHammer)
Post #: 10
RE: WiA findings - 9/16/2008 4:29:37 PM   
GShock


Posts: 1246
Joined: 12/9/2007
From: San Francisco, CA - USA
Status: offline
This deliberate attempt to hijack the thread in order to move the attention from its subject and eventually have it closed is all too evident.

As of your allegations, it would be fruitful if the moderator moved your whole post in a more appropriate thread where i can lecture you on frauds and corporative liability. I sincerely hope he does.

I have posted about bugs, i have had an answer from the WiA coordinator to whom i further replied to clarify.

Meanwhile if you have anything to add pertaining this subject, please do so...but any expectation of me digressing from the topic is vain.



(in reply to Gray_Lensman)
Post #: 11
RE: WiA findings - 9/16/2008 5:57:20 PM   
Gray_Lensman


Posts: 640
Joined: 4/10/2003
Status: offline
.

< Message edited by Gray_Lensman -- 9/17/2008 3:15:19 PM >

(in reply to GShock)
Post #: 12
RE: WiA findings - 9/16/2008 7:03:26 PM   
Primasprit


Posts: 62
Joined: 1/7/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline
Hi GShock,

I will check the issues regarding the distant unload feature to see if there is something wrong. The idea about bombing the unload region to support the landing troops sounds interesting too.

Cheers
Norbert

_____________________________

AGEOD Dev. Team

(in reply to Gray_Lensman)
Post #: 13
RE: WiA findings - 9/16/2008 10:25:28 PM   
GShock


Posts: 1246
Joined: 12/9/2007
From: San Francisco, CA - USA
Status: offline
Thanks Spirit.
I have just delivered a 5 hour long report to Hok as he requested on scenario 22.
Please help him with translations if he needs.





(in reply to Primasprit)
Post #: 14
RE: WiA findings - 9/16/2008 11:33:01 PM   
lodilefty


Posts: 75
Joined: 7/28/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: GShock

Thanks Spirit.
I have just delivered a 5 hour long report to Hok as he requested on scenario 22.
Please help him with translations if he needs.






Thank you for your report
I'll be delighted to help Hok as always.

_____________________________

AGEOD Volunteer
Visit the AGE Wiki at http://www.ageod.net/agewiki/Main_Page

(in reply to GShock)
Post #: 15
RE: WiA findings - 9/17/2008 12:09:03 AM   
KG Erwin


Posts: 8905
Joined: 7/25/2000
From: Cross Lanes WV USA
Status: offline
Mr. GShock, I have had no issue with WiA's developers on the Ageod Forum, so it mystifies me why you have a problem with them. Personally, I applaud their responsiveness and willingness to patch the game when issues are discovered. My questions are promptly answered, so I have nothing but praise for their support.

With you, I am wondering if you have another axe to grind with them. Is this why you choose to air your complaints here, rather than on the Ageod forum? I infer that you are leaving out part of the whole story. What part IS that?

The LAST thing any of us Matrix regulars want is for someone to use a "backdoor" approach to air grievances that only cause ill-will in the community. Using this strategy will not win you many supporters. Keep this in mind.

(in reply to GShock)
Post #: 16
RE: WiA findings - 9/17/2008 9:45:33 AM   
GShock


Posts: 1246
Joined: 12/9/2007
From: San Francisco, CA - USA
Status: offline
If i had needed axes or backdoors i wouldn't have delivered it privately the first time, and again another one delivered privately last night and more to be delivered, still privately in the following days.

(in reply to KG Erwin)
Post #: 17
RE: WiA findings - 9/17/2008 10:36:08 AM   
Primasprit


Posts: 62
Joined: 1/7/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline
I just want to state that, in my experience, GShock never intentionally did anything to harm AGEOD. I think he provided us, and still do, with a lot of useful hints and informations.

Cheers
Norbert

_____________________________

AGEOD Dev. Team

(in reply to GShock)
Post #: 18
RE: WiA findings - 9/17/2008 10:57:30 AM   
Adam Parker


Posts: 1850
Joined: 4/2/2002
From: Melbourne Australia
Status: offline
@ this thread in general. Boy it appears there's a lot of crap flying around in the guise of angst. Seriously, as I gamer I've rarely (if ever) come across such vitriol at Matrix and personally I think it's best to leave these fights off and away from here - that goes to all parties involved.

@ the following quote:
quote:

ORIGINAL: GShock

I fail to see why i should post in public negative details about a game, except if in the gravest circumstances, thus hurting the producers and the publishers,


Because if any gamer does otherwise in my books, theyr'e doing the hobby a disservice. I found your alerts here very helpful as a buyer still sitting on the fence - and personally, when it comes to patches at the Ageod site, I've just given up hope working out what patch I need for the games I own. Things have become just too complex for me.

I've been so p'd off over the years of buying games with known but undisclosed bugs.

Thank you for alerting me to the fact that Ageod's games still have issues. I knew "of" it, suspected it browsing Ageod's confusing forums as referenced above and felt it - but it's good to know my gut feel was right.

Fingers crossed that Ageod can polish off ACW and WiA and get them right. Honestly, best of luck and I'll still be waiting with my wallet if so. But the days of companies expecting me to buy unfinished games are well and truly past for me. The gullible spirit of the 1990's has gone. I've just moved on.

(in reply to GShock)
Post #: 19
RE: WiA findings - 9/17/2008 11:46:30 AM   
GShock


Posts: 1246
Joined: 12/9/2007
From: San Francisco, CA - USA
Status: offline
Adam, from my personal experience i can ensure you there's no flawless program, much less a game.
AgeOD, under many aspects, is 10 times better than many other dev houses and the critics expressed in my post are applicable to them as well, starting with Microsoft itself.

We could talk for months about AgeOD's good sides but the goal to achieve is improvement and you achieve that by working on bad sides not on the good ones.

I think you'd be making a wrong judgement on AgeOD and its games if you had to do it only by reading my post and the possibility of anyone making this wrong judgement is the key reason for me never wanting to report in public.

As of the patch you need, scroll down the main forums and you'll see the links to the latest patch.
This works the same with almost all games in the world.

(in reply to Adam Parker)
Post #: 20
RE: WiA findings - 9/17/2008 7:40:27 PM   
Venator

 

Posts: 96
Joined: 1/22/2007
Status: offline
Or to update the game just hit the handy Update button thoughtfully provided on the game menu screen. Quick and painless.

In general I'm impressed with BoA2. There are certainly bugs but I've played through the '75-'83 campaign and the war of 1812 and encountered nothing more annoying than the odd missing unit name.

It would be nice if the AI was a little more active in the naval sphere (ie did anything at all of use to its game) but that's not exactly a bug, more an AI failing. And even with that bit gives a surprisingly reasonable game. Obviously it's not amazing but it's no pushover either.

(in reply to GShock)
Post #: 21
RE: WiA findings - 11/14/2008 1:07:16 AM   
Stwa


Posts: 446
Joined: 8/12/2005
Status: offline
The main strength/weakness in the AGE gaming engine, is its heavy reliance upon event scripts and setup files. While this affords a scenario designer the necessary tools to build complex scenarios, it also causes a hefty testing event anytime scenarios are modified. Normally scenarios are in development right to the release date for a game.

Communication between testers and scenario developers becomes acute in this development environment. Teams of volunteer "betas" may not do thorough testing, or may not communicate results, and testing must be deep in most cases.

Unexpected results can easily occur, since the sceanrio designers may misunderstand potions of the scripting language themselves, and new command sets are being added throughout the entire development process.

The scripting language has limited modularity (even though I suppose, its event driven code ), but does provide for "include" files for reusability. Nevertheless, the sheer size and volume of scenarios added to the self induced complexity of the project teams, was a recipe for poorer than expected results.

In addition the programmers add new features to the engine during each project, which require testing as well. Sometime this work does not precede the development of the scenairos. The programmers have many projects and may be underwater most of the time.

Nevertheless, Ageod game designs are very good, and if developed properly should yield excellent games.

(in reply to Venator)
Post #: 22
RE: WiA findings - 11/14/2008 10:27:16 AM   
GShock


Posts: 1246
Joined: 12/9/2007
From: San Francisco, CA - USA
Status: offline
I am finally playing it a little more.

I had 5 ctd in the last 2 days and a few problems with things i don't understand. Units disappearing without apparent reason or explanation either in the rules or on the interface, units building forts that do not get built next turn, replacements not arriving or...for example, not being optionable as in the case of warships (you send them to the port and without replacements they can't be repaired which since there's a strong attrition in winter means a constant bleeding you can't stop), messages talking about generals or admirals coming in a place but then spawning in another place, etc.

Most of these problems depend on the things you just mentioned, a few others are buried in the "root" of the engine (i'm sure i know now why these 5 CTD happened and they have the same reason and i think it's very easy to fix, well that it's already been fixed actually).

Luckily the 1.02c patch changed the game for the better but the point of my critic was that with a better organization, with the same monthly expenses, much less trouble could have been spared at the 1.0 release and much more innovations and fixes could have been added in the future patches. Which of course translates into more sales.

It's important to invest more in the pre-release and QA phases so you can save damage coming at the release date...as happened with WW1 and as totally expected on my part.
I think more than about costs it's about personnel, general company guidelines building a better organization. Come on some of these problems are so easy to find and so easy to fix that they really could have been spared.


_____________________________

How long will you pretend you can't do anything about it? Support www.animalsasia.org

(in reply to Stwa)
Post #: 23
RE: WiA findings - 11/14/2008 11:00:18 AM   
Stwa


Posts: 446
Joined: 8/12/2005
Status: offline
Well, glad you are giving it another shot. But try to relax a bit, its just a computer game you know. In software, its usually best to buy after a good number of revisions. I have started buying games after one year or more. Its paid off for sure. Most wargames that are any good, will last a long time, as Matrix has demonstrated.

Anyway kick back some, if you get bored with the games then maybe we could break out some TD-Sequential charts and try to predict the bottom of this crazy stock market... probably less frustrating than invading colonial America.


(in reply to GShock)
Post #: 24
RE: WiA findings - 11/14/2008 4:00:58 PM   
5_Star

 

Posts: 6
Joined: 11/14/2008
Status: offline
I think they must have listened and tweaked the Pequot scenario. I have gotten a victory playing as the Pequot's and the Colonials. It seems some what balanced, but the Pequot's have it a little tougher. (like it probably really was...)

I haven't had one CTD issue since I installed the game, only problem I have had is it locking up upon loading the game which was caused by a background program.

(in reply to Stwa)
Post #: 25
RE: WiA findings - 11/14/2008 5:34:53 PM   
GShock


Posts: 1246
Joined: 12/9/2007
From: San Francisco, CA - USA
Status: offline
Well 5_Star, I'm not an ordinary player.

When i see something wrong i stress things to recreate it and report findings. At present time my campaign with the British vs French is halted with the 6th CTD and i was finally able to identify and report the reason why that happens.

They do listen, and they do reply, besides they also fixed the Neuvelle Orleans scenario.


_____________________________

How long will you pretend you can't do anything about it? Support www.animalsasia.org

(in reply to 5_Star)
Post #: 26
RE: WiA findings - 11/15/2008 2:03:33 PM   
lodilefty


Posts: 75
Joined: 7/28/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 5_Star

I think they must have listened and tweaked the Pequot scenario. I have gotten a victory playing as the Pequot's and the Colonials. It seems some what balanced, but the Pequot's have it a little tougher. (like it probably really was...)

I haven't had one CTD issue since I installed the game, only problem I have had is it locking up upon loading the game which was caused by a background program.


Thanks! It's good to know the efforts are appreciated

It is difficult to support the game in multiple forums.. If you have specific issues, it helps immensly to report them at the AGEOD forum.
We'll keep improving the game

_____________________________

AGEOD Volunteer
Visit the AGE Wiki at http://www.ageod.net/agewiki/Main_Page

(in reply to 5_Star)
Post #: 27
RE: WiA findings - 11/15/2008 11:36:20 PM   
Stwa


Posts: 446
Joined: 8/12/2005
Status: offline
I can attest to the fact that Lodi has done a great job, addressing issues in this very complex game.

People must appreciate that this type of game is data and graphics intensive. You get a beautiful game, with handdrawn maps, and unit graphics, and plenty of data underneath it all.

As time goes on, issues affecting game play will fall away, and in a decade this game will still be here, ready for new purchasers.

(in reply to lodilefty)
Post #: 28
RE: WiA findings - 11/16/2008 9:59:34 AM   
GShock


Posts: 1246
Joined: 12/9/2007
From: San Francisco, CA - USA
Status: offline
Stwa...look at the date of this report, imagine 50 more done in private starting from 1 year and a half ago.
I think it's pretty obvious that much trouble could have been spared if the big heads had just listened to more important things than just bugs or glitches.
This is not about lodilefty or about Hok, as clearly stated, it's about management choices...look what's happened with WW1.

This report is a demonstration of very well known issues that AGEod has brought along through 3 releases and hundreds of patches. They are always running to catch up with something that very easily could have been done before the releases with no further expenses company-wise.

I just love WiA as i love AACW but i'd just love it even more if AGEod reaped more benefits after such hard work. They deserve it.

I don't care at all I can't complete my campaign due to CTD issues, what i care for is the company sales that strictly depend on the trust of the core base customers of previous titles. Bugs and glitches are a result of overconfidence on giving per assumed that everything will be wad and poor QA assessment. Don't look at the bugs, look at what causes them.


_____________________________

How long will you pretend you can't do anything about it? Support www.animalsasia.org

(in reply to Stwa)
Post #: 29
RE: WiA findings - 11/16/2008 11:29:42 AM   
Stwa


Posts: 446
Joined: 8/12/2005
Status: offline
Well, I have gone way over my post quota for this thread.

But, Ageod is rushin stuff into production, because they needed the money yesterday. Its really that simple. Its their call, and thats what they decided to do, IMHO.

Regarding your views about Ageod management etc. I think you have been allowed to voice your concern. Now you are just repeating yourself. Like I said before, its just a computer game. Its a complete bewilderment to me that some volunteers can basically work 24x7 for free when it comes to a game.


(in reply to GShock)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Age of Muskets] >> Birth of America 2: Wars in America >> WiA findings Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.141