Matrix Games Forums

War in the West Manual previewThe fight for Armageddon begins! The Matrix Holiday sales are starting today! Warhammer - Weapons of WarFlashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm gets huge update and a Steam release!Battle Academy 2 opens up a new front!Flashpoint Campaigns Featured on weekly Streaming SessionFrontline: The Longest Day - New Screenshots!Deal of the Week: Hannibal Rome and CarthageFlashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm gets Players Edition!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Time of Fury 1.04 beta

 
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.] >> [World War II] >> Time of Fury >> RE: Time of Fury 1.04 beta Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Time of Fury 1.04 beta - 1/31/2013 10:10:12 AM   
Rasputitsa


Posts: 1706
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: doomtrader
Actually the game was most stable and completed after 1.01.
I think that was the moment where we could stop developing it further and only focus on patching those minor glitches that has left.

But we have decided to introduce some huge changes on players requests in 1.02.
This causes us a lot of problems which we have been trying to fix in 1.03 and now 1.04.

Are you able to tell us what to look forward to, what might these huge changes be ?

_____________________________

"We have to go from where we are, not from where we would like to be" - me

(in reply to doomtrader)
Post #: 31
RE: Time of Fury 1.04 beta - 1/31/2013 11:03:10 AM   
doomtrader


Posts: 5322
Joined: 7/22/2008
From: Poland
Status: offline
The largest change was redesign of the supply system.
This required us to redo really huge part of the code

(in reply to Rasputitsa)
Post #: 32
RE: Time of Fury 1.04 beta - 2/1/2013 10:54:15 AM   
Rasputitsa


Posts: 1706
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: doomtrader

The largest change was redesign of the supply system.
This required us to redo really huge part of the code


OK, thanks, see naval surface battles thread for errors in 1.04 beta scenarios.


_____________________________

"We have to go from where we are, not from where we would like to be" - me

(in reply to doomtrader)
Post #: 33
RE: Time of Fury 1.04 beta - 2/2/2013 2:40:16 AM   
rmonical

 

Posts: 1397
Joined: 4/1/2011
Status: offline
I played it through the Fall of France to look at issues not particularly related to the air unit supply bug.

I looked at the events: The SMP reduction issue is definitely a bug in the Country.ChangeSMP routine. I assume it overwrites (minimum 0) instead of adds. After German SMP went to 0 when Poland surrendered, I edited it back up to 11. When the effectiveness hit ended- Country.ChangeSMP(2,5) set German SMP to 5.

The other issues are scenario design related.
1. I cannot get from the German Grand Campaign to the Fall Gelb research values. Should Germany start at 2 for infantry and armor instead of 1?
2. As I mentioned elsewhere, if the British send all the carriers out after raiders, the raider's lives are short.
3. The French level 1 upkeep limit of 100 is too low. I set it to 160 and unfroze all of the French units. France still fell by late August with no use of air power by either side. Note that France starts Fall Gelb at just over 150 and is thus losing production points. France falling by late June 40 should be considered the absolute best possible case and not hard wired into the game by weird production limitations. This is the most egregious issue facing the French - but IMHO, the French OOB is seriously nerfed.
4. Tried Winter War again with playing the Finns as human. The human Soviets made slow steady progress, but did not force a surrender by August after attriting the greatly augmented Finish army almost to nothing- Winter War needs to end by event or there needs to some cumulative casualty level in addition to Vyborg falling. By August Finlnd has taken 384K casualties compared to 70K historically. In addition, Soviet casualties seem low - 90K in TOF verses 323K historically. Fixing the air supply issue will help the Soviets, but this still seems broken to me. The Soviet War economy is up to 75%.


(in reply to Rasputitsa)
Post #: 34
RE: Time of Fury 1.04 beta - 2/3/2013 4:17:16 PM   
baloo7777


Posts: 274
Joined: 5/18/2009
From: eastern CT
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: doomtrader

The largest change was redesign of the supply system.
This required us to redo really huge part of the code


First. thank you for continuing to work to make this game the one I was hoping for when I purchased it. Is the supply system a work in progress (are you working to fix the air supply)? I have continued to play the 1.04b upgrade about 30 turns into the the 1944 scenario (Gotterdamerung). Except for the previously mentioned issues (air supply, convoy routing, etc.), all is working pretty much as the game designer's intended. No crashes yet, which was what made 1.03b unusable for me. Also, I started boardgaming in the mid-seventies, but only found these computer wargames in the last 5-7 years or so, and do not feel I know enough to mod or try to fix glitches myself. That is why I appreciate these forums and players who are using them. However, I sometimes get lost on how to mod certain things, although I feel certain that many of you think of these fixes as second nature. Could you, explain what to do to fix a glitch a little more so I might follow and be sure I did not corrupt something with the game in my fumbling attempts. (By the way, I am an assistant analytical scientist, though never a computer fixer, as I have son-in laws who usually take care of that for me). Sorry so long winded, and again, thank you for not leaving a enjoyable game hanging.

_____________________________

JRR

(in reply to doomtrader)
Post #: 35
RE: Time of Fury 1.04 beta - 2/3/2013 9:18:16 PM   
doomtrader


Posts: 5322
Joined: 7/22/2008
From: Poland
Status: offline
quote:

Is the supply system a work in progress (are you working to fix the air supply)?

Working on this at the moment.

(in reply to baloo7777)
Post #: 36
RE: Time of Fury 1.04 beta - 2/3/2013 10:22:36 PM   
Mark Clark

 

Posts: 107
Joined: 7/22/2008
Status: offline
I am noticing that my US planes in the UK all have low supply because they are being supplied out of Scotland or north England even though they are all based in the south.  Is this part of the supply bug?

(in reply to doomtrader)
Post #: 37
RE: Time of Fury 1.04 beta - 2/4/2013 1:23:37 AM   
rmonical

 

Posts: 1397
Joined: 4/1/2011
Status: offline
Yes

(in reply to Mark Clark)
Post #: 38
RE: Time of Fury 1.04 beta - 2/5/2013 3:24:06 AM   
battlevonwar

 

Posts: 217
Joined: 12/22/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: doomtrader

Actually the game was most stable and completed after 1.01.
I think that was the moment where we could stop developing it further and only focus on patching those minor glitches that has left.

But we have decided to introduce some huge changes on players requests in 1.02.
This causes us a lot of problems which we have been trying to fix in 1.03 and now 1.04.



I have played dozens of multi player games and a good deal of Strategic War Games in Clubs. Continued interest and a fan club is very important. These improvements don't seem like much but some of the games I played were tweaked after 6-7 patches until the games were as decent and smooth running as possible.(YOU will never PLEASE Everyone but you are doing a lot, it's appreciated) In EU2(from the designer of HOI series) we would edit as we played and the designer spent countless hours. Hundreds of devoted fans stuck around for that game for nearly half a decade. It was massive for it's day and spawned an entire Company in my opinion. You have done very well and I urge you to keep going. This baby will be finished and I really love Hexagon WW2 games. I grew up with them, from the 80s.

We just need to make a good balance... that pleases hardcore historians and hardcore gamer's, happy medium

I'll keep playing, as long as the competition does, Thanks DoomTrader


(in reply to doomtrader)
Post #: 39
RE: Time of Fury 1.04 beta - 2/5/2013 4:37:18 AM   
rmonical

 

Posts: 1397
Joined: 4/1/2011
Status: offline
1.04 is working for me on Win 8 as well!

(in reply to battlevonwar)
Post #: 40
RE: Time of Fury 1.04 beta - 2/8/2013 8:11:48 PM   
Mark Clark

 

Posts: 107
Joined: 7/22/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rmonical

Yes

Is there any fix for this?

(in reply to rmonical)
Post #: 41
RE: Time of Fury 1.04 beta - 2/8/2013 8:12:14 PM   
Mark Clark

 

Posts: 107
Joined: 7/22/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rmonical

Yes

Is there any fix for this?

(in reply to rmonical)
Post #: 42
RE: Time of Fury 1.04 beta - 2/8/2013 8:56:20 PM   
rmonical

 

Posts: 1397
Joined: 4/1/2011
Status: offline
See the fix I posted in the other thread.

(in reply to Mark Clark)
Post #: 43
RE: Time of Fury 1.04 beta - 2/9/2013 11:31:23 AM   
demjansk

 

Posts: 544
Joined: 2/20/2008
Status: offline
i just started my game and clicked on the update and it said my game is version 1.02. no updates available, what is the official version of the game?

(in reply to doomtrader)
Post #: 44
RE: Time of Fury 1.04 beta - 2/10/2013 3:18:35 PM   
rmonical

 

Posts: 1397
Joined: 4/1/2011
Status: offline
V.1.02 is the official version of the game. If you want to try the v.104 beta, then you might want to save off your v.102 version. The v.104 beta installs directly on top off the v.102 version. I made the mistake of replacing the v.102 data directory with the v.104 data directory. It must be merged. The biggest issue with v.104 is the low air unit supply bug. There are edits to the configuration files you can make to address this. const.ini and consts_german.ini (the 1939 Grand Campaign - other files may need to be edited in other scenarios).

In both files there are a series of supply level penalties described thusly. You need to edit the ones for 25 and below when the air unit penalties kick in:
[UnitsPerformanceInRelationsToSupplyAt25]
EffectivityPenalty = 1
ActionPointsPenalty = 0
ColumnShiftDuringAirCombat = 0 <--- leave this at 0 at each level
AirStrikeModifier = 100 <--- leave this at 100 at each level
MaximumReplacementsForLandUnits = 75
MaximumReplacementsForAirUnits = 8 <--- leave this at 10 at each level

Then you want to change the section on rebasing
[AirUnitsRebase]
SupplyToRebaseUnitType20 = 15 <--- change this to 1
SupplyToRebaseUnitType21 = 15 <--- change this to 1
SupplyToRebaseUnitType22 = 15 <--- change this to 1


I do not think there are other huge issues with v.104 in the early war.

(in reply to demjansk)
Post #: 45
Next Patch? - 2/11/2013 4:14:45 PM   
Omnius


Posts: 520
Joined: 6/22/2012
From: Salinas, CA
Status: offline
doomtrader,
About when will we be able to see a new patch after 1.04 that fixes the air unit supply snafus? Just a ballpark estimate for planning purposes. I'd like to play ToF again but am waiting for a more stable version that doesn't have problems we have to try to fix ourselves. I'm just going to wait until I see a better patch come out.
Omnius

(in reply to rmonical)
Post #: 46
RE: Next Patch? - 2/11/2013 6:53:07 PM   
Rasputitsa


Posts: 1706
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline
Is it just me, but 1.04 beta doesn't have the 'intercept lock' feature for fighter units. Is this one of the issues that caused problems with earlier versions and will it appear in the final 1.04.

_____________________________

"We have to go from where we are, not from where we would like to be" - me

(in reply to Omnius)
Post #: 47
RE: Next Patch? - 2/17/2013 7:42:37 AM   
Meteor2

 

Posts: 126
Joined: 7/20/2009
From: Germany
Status: offline
As I said on 9/10/2012:
The speed of patches is unbelievable slow. That is a reason for me to be reluctant with Wasteland games.
Starting with a good concept, it seems that the games are never really finished.
Unfortunately I have to say this, although I like the game and want to play it.

(in reply to Rasputitsa)
Post #: 48
RE: Next Patch? - 2/25/2013 1:27:06 AM   
battlevonwar

 

Posts: 217
Joined: 12/22/2011
Status: offline
I am a little frustrated to with the speed but you have to face the facts. WW2 Hexagon War Games are a small market. Strategic Command 1 the original rebirth of 2000s plus Hexagon Wargames(grand strategic ww2 level) had an air bug where if you planted a fighter unit on any strategic resource/city you got an auto +1 advantage or something like that. Took ages and ages to find out. Some knew and exploited it.

The fact that after 2 or 3 years this is a fully finished product will mean a lot. It's a shame there isn't a slightly larger audience. If Doom was making the extra money that some of the other titles snort up, this would likely drive the guy to do more with it or hire people to do it. The fact it's getting there, is great... We won't see another like it I don't figure and World in Flames is too detailed for me..

quote:

ORIGINAL: Meteor2

As I said on 9/10/2012:
The speed of patches is unbelievable slow. That is a reason for me to be reluctant with Wasteland games.
Starting with a good concept, it seems that the games are never really finished.
Unfortunately I have to say this, although I like the game and want to play it.


(in reply to Meteor2)
Post #: 49
RE: Next (OFFICIAL) Patch? - 2/25/2013 3:55:29 AM   
Agent S


Posts: 1303
Joined: 9/21/2007
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline
The one thing I notice here is that as players get more and more impatient for updates; but, every developer on this site issues pubic BETA updates.
Personally this just seems to muddy the expectations as to when official patches get released.
Often the beta patch is patched again and again publicly, and plenty of people scratch their heads at where the game is at and what official patch is current.
1.04b, 1.07a etc. etc. etc. (what happened to an official 1.03 release, we now have a later beta...)
I'd rather see a game update released, WHEN IT"S COMPLETE, instead of being frustrated at glitches that should be picked up behind the scenes in closed beta testing.
As I said wastelands are not the only people who have fallen into this trap, if no comments are issued weekly, then people feel abandoned.
I have plenty of good games from Matrix all vying for my time and attention. So when the patch is official, then the game is back on the radar.
But the blips and false alarms, annoying.

where am I going with all this? no idea.

< Message edited by Agent S -- 2/25/2013 3:57:00 AM >


_____________________________

"Great men are forged in fire, it is the privilege of lesser men to light the flame. Whatever the cost." -Dr. Who (#1)

(in reply to battlevonwar)
Post #: 50
RE: Next (OFFICIAL) Patch? - 2/25/2013 9:44:24 AM   
Rasputitsa


Posts: 1706
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline
The reality for small game developers is that they need the player input to progress, they do not have the resources for extensive development projects and testing. Using ideas from the players and issuing beta versions to get them tested is the only way to proceed, unless you are a big bucks developer serving a huge market, which these games are obviously not.

Players who expect these niche market games to work perfectly, straight out of the box, are in the wrong part of the gaming market for that to be a realistic expectation.

Having used 'Time of Wrath', 'Storm in the Pacific' and now 'Time of Fury', I can see the gradual progress that has been made to get here, but it must be frustrating for people who have come into the Wastelands experience during the teething problems of this game and are expecting quicker results.



_____________________________

"We have to go from where we are, not from where we would like to be" - me

(in reply to Agent S)
Post #: 51
RE: Next (OFFICIAL) Patch? - 2/25/2013 10:17:10 AM   
Agent S


Posts: 1303
Joined: 9/21/2007
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline
I hear what you're saying Rasp. I started with Road to Victory, and will always support the efforts of Wastelands.
They have a great ethic. and clearly rely on more experienced gamers than I, to give robust and nuanced feedback.

I'm just saying that continual incremental beta releases from many Matrix developers just muddies the waters.
and must annoy newcomers probably more than me.

(in reply to Rasputitsa)
Post #: 52
RE: Next (OFFICIAL) Patch? - 2/25/2013 11:04:04 AM   
Rasputitsa


Posts: 1706
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Agent S
I hear what you're saying Rasp. I started with Road to Victory, and will always support the efforts of Wastelands.
They have a great ethic. and clearly rely on more experienced gamers than I, to give robust and nuanced feedback.

I'm just saying that continual incremental beta releases from many Matrix developers just muddies the waters.
and must annoy newcomers probably more than me.


I agree completely, it's just that this is the way it is for this type of game, it really went wrong when problems in beta 1.03 were found to have started in official 1.02. Either way, TOF is not a finished product, it's part of a journey, which started with the earlier games and who knows how far we have left to go, but I have enjoyed the ride, if a little bumpy.


< Message edited by Rasputitsa -- 2/25/2013 9:16:09 PM >


_____________________________

"We have to go from where we are, not from where we would like to be" - me

(in reply to Agent S)
Post #: 53
RE: Time of Fury 1.04 beta - 2/26/2013 2:52:56 AM   
Razz


Posts: 2524
Joined: 10/21/2007
From: CaLiForNia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rmonical

I played it through the Fall of France to look at issues not particularly related to the air unit supply bug.

I looked at the events: The SMP reduction issue is definitely a bug in the Country.ChangeSMP routine. I assume it overwrites (minimum 0) instead of adds. After German SMP went to 0 when Poland surrendered, I edited it back up to 11. When the effectiveness hit ended- Country.ChangeSMP(2,5) set German SMP to 5.

The other issues are scenario design related.
1. I cannot get from the German Grand Campaign to the Fall Gelb research values. Should Germany start at 2 for infantry and armor instead of 1?
2. As I mentioned elsewhere, if the British send all the carriers out after raiders, the raider's lives are short.
3. The French level 1 upkeep limit of 100 is too low. I set it to 160 and unfroze all of the French units. France still fell by late August with no use of air power by either side. Note that France starts Fall Gelb at just over 150 and is thus losing production points. France falling by late June 40 should be considered the absolute best possible case and not hard wired into the game by weird production limitations. This is the most egregious issue facing the French - but IMHO, the French OOB is seriously nerfed.
4. Tried Winter War again with playing the Finns as human. The human Soviets made slow steady progress, but did not force a surrender by August after attriting the greatly augmented Finish army almost to nothing- Winter War needs to end by event or there needs to some cumulative casualty level in addition to Vyborg falling. By August Finlnd has taken 384K casualties compared to 70K historically. In addition, Soviet casualties seem low - 90K in TOF verses 323K historically. Fixing the air supply issue will help the Soviets, but this still seems broken to me. The Soviet War economy is up to 75%.





The SMP is supposed to be reduced after the fall of Poland and the recover in early 1940.

This slows down the German advance to make it closer to history. It is there to prevent the Germans from attacking France and lowlands with in a few turns after Poland falls.
It is programmed correctly.

I'll have to check that next game. Your saying SMP is set at 5. If that is correct the programming code is wrong and may be off by one column.

1) That's interesting. Tech gain is random, but should be able to get on level per year. It looks like Fall Gelb should be reduced to Level one with progress 200/250

2) Good hunting. It doesn't always work that way in my experience. In fact more people complain that the subs are killing too many PP's

3) I agree and it is fixed in the Third Reich. When they changed the supply and unit maintenance the game became unbalanced and unplayable.

4) Don't pay attention to casualties. That number is there for flavor and has no bearing on the strength of your units. However that number has been changed is more realistic in the Third Reich.
The winter war could use another scrubbing.

(in reply to rmonical)
Post #: 54
RE: Time of Fury 1.04 beta - 2/26/2013 5:24:45 AM   
baloo7777


Posts: 274
Joined: 5/18/2009
From: eastern CT
Status: offline
So my TOF v1.04beta simply stopped working this past weekend. Every scenario I tried opening crashed. I was able to open the autosave file, but as soon as I tried moving a unit, it also crashed. I had crashed occasionally while playing the GD scenario, but could recover by loading the autosave file. After trying to start each scenario, crashing, and restarting my computer, I decided that I must have somehow corrupted the game. I decided to remove it completely from my computer. I re-downloaded a new (clean) copy, and immediately upgraded to v1.02. I am waiting for the official 1.04 upgrade. Perhaps I did something wrong when I tried 1.04beta, as the files did not automatically load, and I had to do the file exchange myself (I am not sure if I did it correctly). I am hoping the official 1.04 upgrade is set to replace files automatically.

_____________________________

JRR

(in reply to Razz)
Post #: 55
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Time of Fury >> RE: Time of Fury 1.04 beta Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
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

0.109