Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Don't forget the "etc."

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> RE: Don't forget the "etc." Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Don't forget the "etc." - 11/12/2013 2:07:34 PM   
brian brian

 

Posts: 2795
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline
World in Flames has never been "finished" and hopefully never will be. At times there have been thoughts of "hey, that's IT, it can't get any better now," which are soon trumped by a thought of "hey, what if we tried THIS?," which are soon answered by "Well, I'll volunteer to run a playtest game for THAT."

First Harry Rowland/ADG and now Steve/Matrix have been EXTREMELY gracious throughout the life of the game system in accepting and considering possible improvements from the players.

There is no possible way to have every iteration and idea present in the continually evolving game system available to you, especially on a computerized version. The only way you can receive these things is to wait, or to simply play the paper game, which is still the best game out there and only continues to improve. A sweet new counter set came out just this year. The paper game system is moving forward with what is essentially an open beta, and there are several other games that can be added to the base paper game. All these things will appear in the computer version eventually. But the only way they can appear under our fingertips rather than under a pair of tweezers, is to get started somewhere. If Matrix World in Flames had to wait until every module and rules system was ready for us to run a mouse over, no one knows how many more years that would take.

The decision to go forward as-is can only result in an improved game down the road, as thousands of paying customers using the game (alpha testers, if you will) are likely to find more things to improve than any amount of volunteer beta testers.

It's disappointing to not have every feature you want, NOW, sure. I personally hope work on the Guards Banner Army optional rule stays near the top of the list of things to do. I hope Limited Fighter Interception, where Fighters can only intercept if they are closer to the target hex than the bombing aircraft, is never coded, because this is not a tactical air combat game and I don't know anyone who uses that optional. Everyone who looks at the game probably has a different pair of can't-wait-to-have-this-part / don't-need-to-ever-see-that-part. That's just the nature of a very open game system where the game player is allowed to decide so many things for themselves.

The game is never early / it's always late / first thing you learn / is you always have to wait. The cool part is, it's always worth that wait.

(in reply to Lingering Frey)
Post #: 31
RE: Don't forget the "etc." - 11/12/2013 3:09:35 PM   
SuluSea


Posts: 2246
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SamuraiProgrammer

Edited because of offensive content.




Stay classyX infinity

< Message edited by SuluSea -- 11/12/2013 6:35:53 PM >

(in reply to SamuraiProgrmmr)
Post #: 32
RE: Don't forget the "etc." - 11/12/2013 3:45:10 PM   
JudgeDredd


Posts: 8551
Joined: 11/14/2003
From: Scotland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SamuraiProgrammer


icitrom_y (and others),

May I say, Sir, that I have been programming computers since the summer of 1977. Every job I have held as an adult has been 'in the field'. I have made a career out of small, niche products and have earned my living providing such. I believe I have a bit more understanding than some IBMer whose salary was likely paid by Fortune 500 companies and sucking at the government teat. I believe that gives me a little more experience in this arena than you have. I still have my copy of Delphi 1. And 2. And 3. And 5. And 7. And every release since. So as you expect this forum to bow to your knowledge, I expect you to listen to me.

Now. Having said that.

Listen up!

You, sir, are despicable

I have not seen such tomfoolery in quite some time. In fact, I am having trouble recalling ANY such time that I have witnessed same and suspect that you have the dubious honor of being the biggest social undesirable since Thomas Edison took advantage of Tesla.

If you have half the experience you claim, you should know that this has been a labor of unbelievable investment of energy and emotion. Hell, Steve almost worked himself into a grave.

Oh wait, I bet you are a manager!

If you can understand it, here is some boolean for you,

If you don't like the game OR
If you don't like the price OR
If you don't like the package OR
If you won't use it without AI

THEN

Kindly leave the premises

I will likely get banned for this post but to paraphrase Dick Cheney - I shouldn't have said it but I felt better after I did.

Others, can I get some AMENs before I leave?

Sincerely

EDITED by Moderator to match the poster's edited post.


I've been around here for quite some years - and that is by far the single most rude post I have ever seen. I find it hard to believe you've worked in ANY environment given your use of the English language is limited to foul mouthed, playground language nevermind as a programmer.

This is a family forum for wargamers and, likely, their sons and (hopefully) daughters.

There are plenty of ways you could have told the OP you disagreed with his statement...and indeed some did and with considerably more class than you.

If you don't mind, I don't think I'll bother giving you and Amen - but rather report your post and hope you aren't around these parts again.

Someone has already reported it. Goodbye.

< Message edited by Shannon V. OKeets -- 11/12/2013 8:04:20 PM >


_____________________________

JudgeDredd
I AM the Law!

(in reply to SamuraiProgrmmr)
Post #: 33
Don't Need a Stinking AI - 11/12/2013 4:06:59 PM   
Omnius


Posts: 654
Joined: 6/22/2012
From: Salinas, CA
Status: offline
I disagree that not having an Artificial Ignorance is a problem, I think it's a boon as it forces all players to learn how to play every country in every scenario. Plus we can play better than any Artificial Ignorance possibly can in this extremely complex game. While I do enjoy being able to watch AI's play a game when I first buy it and start it up I find that AI's just screw up games too badly.

I finished my first game of Barbarossa and now I'm on to Guadalcanal. By playing both sides I learned a lot about how things operate and what to do for each country. I look forward to learning how to play Japan and the US in the newly revamped Pacific maps.

Omnius

(in reply to JudgeDredd)
Post #: 34
RE: Don't forget the "etc." - 11/12/2013 4:13:47 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 21244
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jomni


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: jglazier

I am not taking sides at all in this volatile thread. I am just curious if there are plans to add any more of the optional rules that the OP mentioned are missing. Or is this all the game will get? Just curious.


Section 2.2.3 of the Players Manual describes the status of optional rules - some are asterisked.


If the manual is a living document that gets updated as we go along, why do we need hard copies? :D

The manual is complete for all 81 optional rules.

And so is the game code in so far as there are additional phases and subphases of the game in the sequence of play. For optional rules that are not yet coded, those phases effectively do nothing presently.

There are unit counters for all the optional rules and code to display those on the screen. In short, virtually all the background work to implement the optional rules has been done. One exception that comes to mind is for the Intelligence optional rule which would require at least one new form, possibly two. What each optional rule requires is special code that cuts into existing code with branching logic.

Take Flying Bombs for example. These are air units, but they cannot fly. They do require their own pilots but are carried by another air unit. I might be a little vague on the details for these units, but the key point from the programming perspective, is that UNLIKE ANY OTHER AIR UNIT they have to be transported during a bombing mission. So all the code about bombing missions needs to be examined and modified for this one optional rule. If the changes aren't "just so" then existing code for all the other air units in the game flying bombing missions can get messed up. That affects ground strikes, port attacks, carpet bombing, ground support, and strategic bombing. And flying bombs always get destroyed, so UNLIKE ANY OTHER AIR UNIT, they never return to base. To implement this optional rule will take a lot of thought and planning, before writing the actual code. And then the modifications will have to be tested, not only for flying bombs, but for all other air units. There is also code for Undoing a move if a player changes his mind, writing relevant information on these units when they are flying out to the saved game file - and reading it back in. I could go on and on about all the coding details. Suffice it to say there are a lot of odds and ends that have to done perfectly or the rule won't work, perhaps the game itself will stop working if the coding mistake is bad enough.

Wanting something doesn't make it happen. Only hard work adds features to a program.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to jomni)
Post #: 35
RE: Don't forget the "etc." - 11/12/2013 4:15:23 PM   
jeffk3510


Posts: 4084
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Kansas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SamuraiProgrammer

These comments do not necessarily reflect the opinions of anyone at Matrix Games

quote:

ORIGINAL: icitrom_y

Steve and the resident apologists;

All of that is fair enough if you would have mentioned that to prospective buyers who are/were expecting ADG's WiF, not some subset due to your problems because of the project's history. All this information is conspicuously missing from the advertising. Code WiF RAW 7 or don't. It's your business and your prerogative. Slitherine and Matrix could have let buyers know the real situation in advance so that we could have made an informed decision about purchase. I'm assuming this was discussed in the program management meetings in detail.

You'll pardon me if I think your coding problems, although I empathize and I've been there to some extent myself, are not to my mind the complexity you claim they are. This is a rules-based engine, and for the price asked compared to other gaming software, not that large, and the domain analysis done for you in a large part. That many rules changed, well I don't know what to say, except welcome to software development in the real world. That's why change management is so important. Imagine if you had started with no domain analysis at all.

I have 20 years of software development experience, and not COBOL ("lines of code" LOC is pretty unimportant in object-oriented programming). I was a Rational (later IBM) certified qualified practitioner and instructor for object-oriented programming, object-oriented analysis & design, the Rational Unified Process, and object-oriented requirements analysis. So, I'll reserve the right to claim an expert opinion. I recall Delphi 1.0 and Object Pascal very well, which are perfectly suited for any of this. There are a couple of process models perfect here, the RUP Agile model, for example.

Of what you described of your coding, are types. But, there is a lot more to object-oriented programming than that. For whatever problems you have/had there are many patterns to resolve and mitigate them. That is true of the coding as well as architectural and analysis & design patterns. Moreover, nobody is talking about arbitrary changes. Yeah, sure, if it takes a decade--a decade--to develop something, regardless of just about any business domain, the requirements and business rules will certainly most drastically change. Indeed, that WiF is a living wargame, makes various architectural patterns all the more critical.


That's neither here nor there. That you're alone in this is I think the real issue, not any perceived unhandleable complexity. You're pissing in my ear and trying to get me to believe it's raining. I can see what the real problems are, and they seem to be development process based. And yes, that you inherited someone else's undocumented code base is not the least of the story.

The attitude expressed here really pisses me off, as if you guys are entitled to sales and for whatever product. That I was expecting ADG's WiF is no more unreasonable than you guys were expecting $174 from me without any stories attached about why I can only afford $100 right now.

Do whatever you want and please leave the development drama to yourself. What counts is the product you honestly present and whether people will buy into it. I've been reading on BGG, Consimworld and the home of WiF on the Internet, the Yahoo "WiFDiscussion" group. People are amazingly underwhelmed. And, I notice, just about nobody is aware of just how much of RAW 7 is missing from MWiF already and you seem to be saying it's more or less going to stay that way and diverge further in the coming year.


I fully understand what a ****ty position (to be in) you accepted for yourself. I'd suggest that blaming your customer base for--actually--quite reasonable expectations, is not the best business practice. But, go ahead with this apparent attitude about MWiF and WiF; I'm sure I'm probably wrong.
.
quote:

ORIGINAL: SamuraiProgrammer


icitrom_y (and others),

May I say, Sir, that I have been programming computers since the summer of 1977. Every job I have held as an adult has been 'in the field'. I have made a career out of small, niche products and have earned my living providing such. I believe I have a bit more understanding than some IBMer whose salary was likely paid by Fortune 500 companies and sucking at the government teat. I believe that gives me a little more experience in this arena than you have. I still have my copy of Delphi 1. And 2. And 3. And 5. And 7. And every release since. So as you expect this forum to bow to your knowledge, I expect you to listen to me.

Now. Having said that.

Listen up!

You, sir, are despicable

I have not seen such tomfoolery in quite some time. In fact, I am having trouble recalling ANY such time that I have witnessed same and suspect that you have the dubious honor of being the biggest social undesirable since Thomas Edison took advantage of Tesla.

If you have half the experience you claim, you should know that this has been a labor of unbelievable investment of energy and emotion. Hell, Steve almost worked himself into a grave.

Oh wait, I bet you are a manager!

If you can understand it, here is some boolean for you,

If you don't like the game OR
If you don't like the price OR
If you don't like the package OR
If you won't use it without AI

THEN

Kindly leave the premises

I will likely get banned for this post but to paraphrase Dick Cheney - I shouldn't have said it but I felt better after I did.

Others, can I get some AMENs before I leave?

Sincerely

EDITED by Moderator to match the poster's edited post.






My 3 yr old has far more better manners than you ever will.

Stay classy

< Message edited by Shannon V. OKeets -- 11/12/2013 8:05:33 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to SamuraiProgrmmr)
Post #: 36
RE: Don't forget the "etc." - 11/12/2013 4:19:15 PM   
jeffk3510


Posts: 4084
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Kansas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: jomni


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: jglazier

I am not taking sides at all in this volatile thread. I am just curious if there are plans to add any more of the optional rules that the OP mentioned are missing. Or is this all the game will get? Just curious.


Section 2.2.3 of the Players Manual describes the status of optional rules - some are asterisked.


If the manual is a living document that gets updated as we go along, why do we need hard copies? :D

The manual is complete for all 81 optional rules.

And so is the game code in so far as there are additional phases and subphases of the game in the sequence of play. For optional rules that are not yet coded, those phases effectively do nothing presently.

There are unit counters for all the optional rules and code to display those on the screen. In short, virtually all the background work to implement the optional rules has been done. One exception that comes to mind is for the Intelligence optional rule which would require at least one new form, possibly two. What each optional rule requires is special code that cuts into existing code with branching logic.

Take Flying Bombs for example. These are air units, but they cannot fly. They do require their own pilots but are carried by another air unit. I might be a little vague on the details for these units, but the key point from the programming perspective, is that UNLIKE ANY OTHER AIR UNIT they have to be transported during a bombing mission. So all the code about bombing missions needs to be examined and modified for this one optional rule. If the changes aren't "just so" then existing code for all the other air units in the game flying bombing missions can get messed up. That affects ground strikes, port attacks, carpet bombing, ground support, and strategic bombing. And flying bombs always get destroyed, so UNLIKE ANY OTHER AIR UNIT, they never return to base. To implement this optional rule will take a lot of thought and planning, before writing the actual code. And then the modifications will have to be tested, not only for flying bombs, but for all other air units. There is also code for Undoing a move if a player changes his mind, writing relevant information on these units when they are flying out to the saved game file - and reading it back in. I could go on and on about all the coding details. Suffice it to say there are a lot of odds and ends that have to done perfectly or the rule won't work, perhaps the game itself will stop working if the coding mistake is bad enough.

Wanting something doesn't make it happen. Only hard work adds features to a program.


As is any thing in life.

You work hard, you play hard.

_____________________________


(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 37
RE: Don't forget the "etc." - 11/12/2013 4:26:17 PM   
bo

 

Posts: 4182
Joined: 5/1/2009
Status: offline


Bo

< Message edited by bo -- 11/13/2013 1:23:39 AM >

(in reply to brian brian)
Post #: 38
RE: Don't forget the "etc." - 11/12/2013 4:54:09 PM   
icitrom_y

 

Posts: 25
Joined: 10/20/2013
Status: offline
Hey, pause, reverse, rewind.

I bought into the full monty within a couple of hours of release. And, I wasn't charged a special "product not yet complete" rate. I have and had no problem waiting for various as yet unfinished elements coming online over a reasonable period. It's when I started reading about how these elements will never be developed that I posted my initial comments about, that a priority should be that RAW 7 at least should be implemented.

The major stakeholders here had but to post all the items that were not yet implemented and their thoughts about their future development at the top of their advertising posts. Then, we the purchasers could have made an informed decision about whether we want to buy their product. They purposefully hid that information. Is that not so.

I popped open MWiF last week and saw that it wasn't just a couple of options still yet to be implemented but a whole bunch. And more talk about what will not be implemented and more talk about future for-pay modules which one erroneously assumed was part of the initial release but simply delayed.

It is Steve who started with the whole woe-is-me, this is so complex, and I'm an idiot, i.e. the typical techniques such as a red herring and shoot the messenger. He just assumed I'm a boob who doesn't know the first thing about non-trivial software development, and tried to sell me a story. So, I responded accordingly.

Don't take me for an idiot and try to pull the wool over my eyes. Simultaneously, I can recognize Steve's hard work. That he's doing this for free and It's a "labour of love," then I would have liked to have seen very low "labour of love" prices. I'll reserve comment about the wisdom of working for free.

Whatever...put all these excuses, reasons, issues, etc. up front so that consumers don't blow $200 on a computer wargame, and then get into a situation where you're blaming the consumer for being "unrealistic."

I called Matrix/Slitherine a day after I made my purchase, asking for a refund, before the physical box ships. They told me they don't offer refunds because a product fails to meet expectations, so tough luck.

Whatever...I got burned for $200 because I was impatient to wait for detailed product reviews. I trusted in the Matrix name. Lesson learned, and this should be the worst thing that ever happens to me. Well played, Matrix.
.

(in reply to JudgeDredd)
Post #: 39
RE: Don't forget the "etc." - 11/12/2013 5:00:26 PM   
bo

 

Posts: 4182
Joined: 5/1/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: icitrom_y

Hey, pause, reverse, rewind.

I bought into the full monty within a couple of hours of release. And, I wasn't charged a special "product not yet complete" rate. I have and had no problem waiting for various as yet unfinished elements coming online over a reasonable period. It's when I started reading about how these elements will never be developed that I posted my initial comments about, that a priority should be that RAW 7 at least should be implemented.

The major stakeholders here had but to post all the items that were not yet implemented and their thoughts about their future development at the top of their advertising posts. Then, we the purchasers could have made an informed decision about whether we want to buy their product. They purposefully hid that information. Is that not so.

I popped open MWiF last week and saw that it wasn't just a couple of options still yet to be implemented but a whole bunch. And more talk about what will not be implemented and more talk about future for-pay modules which one erroneously assumed was part of the initial release but simply delayed.

It is Steve who started with the whole woe-is-me, this is so complex, and I'm an idiot, i.e. the typical techniques such as a red herring and shoot the messenger. He just assumed I'm a boob who doesn't know the first thing about non-trivial software development, and tried to sell me a story. So, I responded accordingly.

Don't take me for an idiot and try to pull the wool over my eyes. Simultaneously, I can recognize Steve's hard work. That he's doing this for free and It's a "labour of love," then I would have liked to have seen very low "labour of love" prices. I'll reserve comment about the wisdom of working for free.

Whatever...put all these excuses, reasons, issues, etc. up front so that consumers don't blow $200 on a computer wargame, and then get into a situation where you're blaming the consumer for being "unrealistic."

I called Matrix/Slitherine a day after I made my purchase, asking for a refund, before the physical box ships. They told me they don't offer refunds because a product fails to meet expectations, so tough luck.

Whatever...I got burned for $200 because I was impatient to wait for detailed product reviews. I trusted in the Matrix name. Lesson learned, and this should be the worst thing that ever happens to me. Well played, Matrix.
.


I do hope and pray icitrom that you do not think I was referring to you, I was referring to the foul mouth s I respect your opinion but not the other foul mouth contibution to these posts, and I am mortified that something has not been said by the powers that be.

Bo



< Message edited by bo -- 11/13/2013 1:23:15 AM >

(in reply to icitrom_y)
Post #: 40
RE: Don't forget the "etc." - 11/12/2013 5:07:05 PM   
SamuraiProgrmmr

 

Posts: 340
Joined: 10/17/2004
From: Paducah, Kentucky
Status: offline
For what it is worth,

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


To icitrom_y,

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

IMO This is perhaps the least buggy piece of gaming software released in this decade


_____________________________

Bridge is the best wargame going .. Where else can you find a tournament every weekend?

(in reply to bo)
Post #: 41
RE: Don't forget the "etc." - 11/12/2013 5:13:05 PM   
berto


Posts: 15913
Joined: 3/13/2002
From: metro Chicago, Illinois, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Chris, who did the original code, wrote 100,000 lines with two [2!] in-line comments and no external documentation (other than the WIF rule book). There was a short external .txt Help file for the players.

Now THAT'S funny! It makes one pause to consider the sheer difficulty of one programmer picking up another programmer's work, sometimes years later and with a different language/compiler for the latest operating system(s). There are many who seem to think old computer games can be easily converted and updated. Yeah, right, no problem.

+1

(see my sig, 3rd line)

_____________________________


(in reply to pzgndr)
Post #: 42
RE: Don't forget the "etc." - 11/12/2013 5:32:14 PM   
Arnir


Posts: 482
Joined: 10/12/2002
From: Alberta. In Texas.
Status: offline
This is a genuine question, not a talking point: The store pages says, "In addition to the full set of rules from World in Flames, Final Edition, there are 58 optional rules." Are these 58 rules currently available plus some net yet ready or is it that only part of the 58 are currently available?

_____________________________


(in reply to berto)
Post #: 43
RE: Don't forget the "etc." - 11/12/2013 5:46:52 PM   
FroBodine


Posts: 823
Joined: 5/5/2007
From: Brentwood, California (not the OJ one)
Status: offline
There are currently 58 optional rules that do indeed work. 24 other ones do not work.

< Message edited by jglazier -- 11/12/2013 6:47:19 PM >

(in reply to Arnir)
Post #: 44
RE: Don't forget the "etc." - 11/12/2013 5:56:03 PM   
Arnir


Posts: 482
Joined: 10/12/2002
From: Alberta. In Texas.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jglazier

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


Ok, thanks for that. It's been so long since I've played WiF I'm completely out of the loop. Next Wednesday is payday and I'm having this sinking feeling I'm going to be spending some money.

_____________________________


(in reply to FroBodine)
Post #: 45
RE: Don't forget the "etc." - 11/12/2013 6:54:45 PM   
Klydon


Posts: 2292
Joined: 11/28/2010
Status: offline
It appears a few observations are in order.

First, it would not surprise me if the OP had another user name around here with far more posts and is just looking to cause issues. I wonder if a IP comparison would result in any surprises there, but only the mods will know. Either way, the OP is out of line with his rants and if he doesn't like it, by all means, don't bother coming back under that user name again.

Secondly, anyone that has been around gaming (especially board games) know that the words "final edition" don't really mean "final". I can name several systems/games that the words "final edition" appear only to see new versions/new content, etc come out at some later time. It pretty much happens every single time. Do people realize what happens when a game company stops putting out new material for their games? Is it any wonder why the original WiF game had a lot of add on modules or do I need to explain why? Come on, think about it. This forum is probably filled with a lot of old geezers that absolutely should know better having seen it happen over and over again in the gaming industry. When a company stops publishing new content, the doors close soon after. WiF has not only come out with new modules, but has also come out with improved versions of existing modules.

Other people may be giving SamuraiProgrammer a hard time about his post, but I will give it a hearty AMEN.

From what I have seen of this game, I also agree with him about it being one of the best to hit the game market in a long time in terms of being ready to play and with extremely few bugs. If you would like some entertaining reading about some programing that isn't even close, go read the CiV-5 Forums or any Ubi product forum. Make sure your kids don't see it tho. It can be pretty harsh.

Kudos to Steve not only for the product but the great follow up I am seeing here in the forums. /salute.

(in reply to Arnir)
Post #: 46
RE: Don't forget the "etc." - 11/12/2013 7:31:42 PM   
DBeves

 

Posts: 401
Joined: 7/29/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: jomni


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: jglazier

I am not taking sides at all in this volatile thread. I am just curious if there are plans to add any more of the optional rules that the OP mentioned are missing. Or is this all the game will get? Just curious.


Section 2.2.3 of the Players Manual describes the status of optional rules - some are asterisked.


If the manual is a living document that gets updated as we go along, why do we need hard copies? :D

The manual is complete for all 81 optional rules.

And so is the game code in so far as there are additional phases and subphases of the game in the sequence of play. For optional rules that are not yet coded, those phases effectively do nothing presently.

There are unit counters for all the optional rules and code to display those on the screen. In short, virtually all the background work to implement the optional rules has been done. One exception that comes to mind is for the Intelligence optional rule which would require at least one new form, possibly two. What each optional rule requires is special code that cuts into existing code with branching logic.

Take Flying Bombs for example. These are air units, but they cannot fly. They do require their own pilots but are carried by another air unit. I might be a little vague on the details for these units, but the key point from the programming perspective, is that UNLIKE ANY OTHER AIR UNIT they have to be transported during a bombing mission. So all the code about bombing missions needs to be examined and modified for this one optional rule. If the changes aren't "just so" then existing code for all the other air units in the game flying bombing missions can get messed up. That affects ground strikes, port attacks, carpet bombing, ground support, and strategic bombing. And flying bombs always get destroyed, so UNLIKE ANY OTHER AIR UNIT, they never return to base. To implement this optional rule will take a lot of thought and planning, before writing the actual code. And then the modifications will have to be tested, not only for flying bombs, but for all other air units. There is also code for Undoing a move if a player changes his mind, writing relevant information on these units when they are flying out to the saved game file - and reading it back in. I could go on and on about all the coding details. Suffice it to say there are a lot of odds and ends that have to done perfectly or the rule won't work, perhaps the game itself will stop working if the coding mistake is bad enough.

Wanting something doesn't make it happen. Only hard work adds features to a program.


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

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

I can see the sheer effort thats gone into this thing and dont regret the purchase one little bit.

< Message edited by DBeves -- 11/12/2013 8:33:29 PM >

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 47
RE: Don't forget the "etc." - 11/12/2013 7:54:35 PM   
Moltke71


Posts: 1253
Joined: 9/23/2000
Status: offline
SauraiProgrammer,

AMEN!!!

_____________________________

Jim Cobb

(in reply to Lingering Frey)
Post #: 48
RE: Don't forget the "etc." - 11/12/2013 8:05:19 PM   
goulash

 

Posts: 91
Joined: 8/4/2011
Status: offline
A Bombs were 99% research and then 1% practical in WW2. Whilst a nice to have implemented, this is no way near a game killer here is it really?


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

< Message edited by goulash -- 11/12/2013 9:06:31 PM >

(in reply to Moltke71)
Post #: 49
RE: Don't forget the "etc." - 11/12/2013 8:12:00 PM   
DBeves

 

Posts: 401
Joined: 7/29/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: goulash

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


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


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

(in reply to goulash)
Post #: 50
RE: Don't forget the "etc." - 11/12/2013 8:18:38 PM   
goulash

 

Posts: 91
Joined: 8/4/2011
Status: offline
Agreed you never said that and I was not trying to be a smart*** either. I think you have a perfect right to state your disappointments, I was just merely saying, is this not something that the imagination can take care of until implemented? Sorry if my last post sounded smarmy

(in reply to DBeves)
Post #: 51
RE: Don't forget the "etc." - 11/12/2013 8:46:12 PM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 33894
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline
Hello everyone - please remember to remain civil. Our discussion here are among friends who share the same interests. We should be able to discuss and disagree without making things personal.

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

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

Regards,

- Erik


_____________________________

Erik Rutins
Director of Product Development


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

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to goulash)
Post #: 52
RE: Don't forget the "etc." - 11/12/2013 10:24:39 PM   
paulderynck


Posts: 7384
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: icitrom_y

The major stakeholders here had but to post all the items that were not yet implemented and their thoughts about their future development at the top of their advertising posts. Then, we the purchasers could have made an informed decision about whether we want to buy their product. They purposefully hid that information. Is that not so.


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

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

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

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

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





_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to icitrom_y)
Post #: 53
RE: Don't forget the "etc." - 11/12/2013 10:27:04 PM   
jomni


Posts: 2827
Joined: 11/19/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lingering Frey


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joseignacio


quote:

ORIGINAL: jomni

Well the product page indicates World in Flames Final Edition. What is that?


That's the name they gave to the 2004 edition, I believe. But there have been others since.


World in Flames - Final Edition (Both Classic and Deluxe) came out in 1996. (I have 3 copies in my closet and I double checked the date.)

The rule booklet introduction explicitly states that ADG intends it to be the final version of WiF.


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

_____________________________


(in reply to Lingering Frey)
Post #: 54
RE: Don't forget the "etc." - 11/12/2013 11:11:45 PM   
Rocko911

 

Posts: 287
Joined: 7/2/2004
Status: offline
Dear SamuraiProgrammer, while you are more than able to have an opinion and voice your issues, please in the future remember to keep them in a civil format. I have been a long time buyer of Matrix games and a poster off and on here (This 2004 user name replace my old one for me ) and have never seen such a poor display from a member on this forum. We all like to have a hearty disagreement but find they are best when we can talk about facts and examples, not insults. So you will NOT get a Amen from me, however you will get a disappointing shaking of my head.

(in reply to jomni)
Post #: 55
RE: Don't forget the "etc." - 11/13/2013 12:07:30 AM   
paulderynck


Posts: 7384
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DBeves


quote:

ORIGINAL: goulash

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


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


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

Not to generate a political debate but many historians believe Japan would have surrendered anyway and did so quickly as soon as the Russians attacked Manchuria (August 8, 1945). Some also believe the main idea of dropping the A-bombs was to impress Stalin.

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

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

The odd thing about the optional rule is that you can drop the bomb every turn from March-April 45, which is once per turn for three turns rather than twice on the last turn - which is of course ahistorical since the bomb was not tested until July 45 when Trueman was at the Potsdam conference.


_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to DBeves)
Post #: 56
RE: Don't forget the "etc." - 11/13/2013 12:46:51 AM   
t001001001

 

Posts: 298
Joined: 4/30/2009
Status: offline
quote:

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


and then ur opinion

Good one dude! You should have also put a PS to suggest this thread be closed before anyone gets 'unseemly' and disagrees w/ you heh

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 57
RE: Don't forget the "etc." - 11/13/2013 1:08:46 AM   
t001001001

 

Posts: 298
Joined: 4/30/2009
Status: offline
matrixgames used to push these threads into a sub forum titled:

"Nobody Asked Me But....."



Anybody else remember that?



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




< Message edited by t001001001 -- 11/13/2013 2:11:22 AM >

(in reply to t001001001)
Post #: 58
RE: Don't forget the "etc." - 11/13/2013 1:34:53 AM   
icitrom_y

 

Posts: 25
Joined: 10/20/2013
Status: offline
It sounds like there some fogginess about "option" means with respect to Matrix-WiF and ADG-WiF (Raw 7). I recognized the greyed-out options as from WiF and I was surprised to see just how many there are greyed-out. So, when people here spoke up I thought maybe I was putting my foot in my mouth and these "options" were some new Matrix-WiF option construct.

So, I took the few minutes to match-up those from MWiF and RAW 7. The list below can also serve to anyone interested in knowing about it without having to buy the game and be surprised, or sifting through the small print, so-to-speak, of these forums.

Of the 24 currently unimplemented Matrix-WiF options, they are listed below as described in ADG-WiF (RAW 7), and from which add-on module in the WiF world they come from, if any.

1. Frogmen (Option 24 (Asia Aflame))
2. Partisan HQs (Option 72 (Politics in Flames))
3. Guards Banner Armies (Option 70 (Leaders in Flames))
4. City Based Volunteers (Option 67 (Africa Aflame, Leaders in Flames, Politics in Flames)
5. V-Weapons (Option 23 (Planes in Flames))
6. Atomic Bombs (Option 23 (Planes in Flames))
7. Naval Supply Units (Option 69 (Ships in Flames))
8. Convoys in Flames (Option 76 (Convoys in Flames))
9. Rough Seas (Option 75 (Ships in Flames, Cruisers in Flames))
10. Oil Tankers (Option 76 (Convoys in Flames))
11. Surprised ZOC (Option 20 (World in Flames))
12. Kamikazes (Option 60 (World in Flames))
13. Bounce Combat (Option 22 (World in Flames))
14. En-route Aircraft Interception (Option 51 (World in Flames))
15. Limited Aircraft Interception (Option 57 (World in Flames))
16. Flying Bombs (Option 59 (Planes in Flames))
17. Naval Offensive Chit (Option 61 (World in Flames))
18. Isolated Reorganization Limits (Option 47 (World in Flames))
19. Hitler's War (Option 49 (World in Flames))
20. Recruitment Limits (Option 16 (World in Flames))
21. Japanese Command Conflict (Option 64 (World in Flames))
22. USSR-Japan Compulsory Peace (Option 50 (World in Flames))
23. The Ukraine (Option 62 (World in Flames))
24. Intelligence (Option 63 (World in Flames))


Obviously, it's my personal opinion, but cripes, that's a whole hell'ov'a lot of RAW 7. I still, even now, don't care that all this will trickle in over time. The crux of the matter for me is what I keep reading from the developers and managers, again and again, nope, Matrix-WiF is its own thing and we'll include what we want to and deem feasible. Fair enough. I wish I'd known that $200 back. Moreover, with so much on the development plate at this point, expanding the product to include ADG sister products like, Days of Decision, well, that's totally flown out of my mind.


I would add an important point. Some of the list above has been deemed too complex to implement, so they'll just skip it. Indeed, exactly because these options so fundamentally alter the game of WiF indicates that they are not simply minor chrome add-ons.

I yanked out my 2008 annual that contains the rules for Factories in Flames (FiF). (FiF is not listed as part of MWiF. I'm just using it as an example for the following point.) It's a few pages of rules. But, if you go through it in detail you can see where the rules impact the game just about everywhere. That's a major big deal. From Steve's point-of-view, FiF is not simply a stick in the spokes of his wheels, it's a barrelful of sticks. If his code is not architecturally so structured, it means a lot of development pain. From my consumer's point-of-view, FiF is a major option, not to be implemented, and makes MWiF divergent from ADG's WiF. Once I saw the list of the other 24 unimplemented options, well that was just way too much for me.


To respond to you, Bo, no I don't think you were talking about me. I recognized that you were referencing the quasi-violent post up-thread. I appreciate your sentiment as well as the professional nature of the Matrix moderators here. I understand where I am. There are a bunch of geeky or immature types and that's part of the wargaming world and subculture/demographic.

I also understand that Steve is offended and feels unappreciated by, from his point-of-view, another geeky immature type (what does he know of my problems). Steve, I totally understand the corners of your four walls. But, it's not my place to be concerned about that, not unless you're going to sell your product at a discount in exchange.

Yes, of course, one can write one line of requirements (in this case, in part, ADG-WiF RAW 7), and it implies an entire new subsystem. Using that as an argument, to my mind as an experienced developer, is a non-starter. WiF is what it is as defined by Harry Rowland, and you guys took it upon yourself to make his game. Even though it implies a whole new mountain of work, I cannot criticize my domain experts that reality implies too much work for me. I can tell them the software development implications and they can decide whether they want to pay/buy.

That you are afraid to touch your code and feel it is too brittle is again not my concern as a consumer:

I'm sure you are aware of FURPS+

Functionality
Usability
Reliability
Performance
Supportability

And the several dozen other -ilities that go under all that.

I refuse, as the consumer, to be made a scapegoat of unreasonableness and being unrealistic, because the developers missed the boat on several critical attributes in that all-important list above, and it's continually biting you in the ass even now. In particular, maintainability, and process issues vis-à-vis iterations. I didn't do anything wrong except pony up $200 faster than I should have.

With respect to various comments in this thread of how I, as a consumer, was too stupid to have re-read years' worth of posts in order to unravel what is/isn't/will/won't be implemented, you speak more of yourselves than of me I think.

Mr. Rutins wrtites above, "Regarding the original post, we went over the product page before release to make sure it only reflected the rules and content included at release." Sounds like the practice of due diligence as advised by an attorney. I'm not claiming any legal right and I'm sure you guys are covered.

Also, some cleanup comments: Nope this is not a sock puppet. I never had occasion to use the Matrix Forums. I gave up on a computerized WiF years and years ago. I heard over on BGG that MWiF was finally coming out. I checked out the several advertising posts, especially the 7 Wows post. I thought MWiF looked amazing functionally (and I still do). I think Steve did a bang-up job in his functional design/port from cardboard. Also, the maps are awesome.

I performed some due diligence here in these forums. I pretty much stopped when I found the list of which ADG modules are included, noting that only Factories in Flames (FiF) was omitted from Matrix-WiF. I was OK with that. I took that at face value, which was my main mistake, I guess, if I understand people's criticisms of my position. I had some questions about the maps so I just recently registered on these forums so I could post my questions.

I know of Matrix for many years and I just put my faith in the brand, such that if anything was missing from the day-1 release, I was confident it would arrive later. It's only when I started reading, understanding, and grasping that MWiF will be its own beast, already well divergent from ADG's WiF, that the red flags started to go up. I have no interest in learning some other game, albeit clearly originally sourced from ADG's WiF.

That understanding took a couple of days of reading the manuals that came with the download and these forums. So, I quickly asked Matrix for a refund before the physical product ships. Slitherine responded with a, and I paraphrase, no, too bad for me.

Well, if I'm stuck with this--in my opinion--not WiF, I thought I'd post about my position, which is my original post, in order to (a) make people aware of this situation, and (b) if people agree with me, that we collectively urge that MWiF be at least ADG WiF compliant; i.e. make our wishes known.

Then the apologists and fanboys fell out of the woodwork with their usual venom and immaturity.

And, Steve was very offended that I should have the temerity to suggest that programming all of RAW 7 is actually not the undoable monster he was trying to convince me of. Obviously (to me; in my opinion), the development project has severe structural and process issues, none of which are Steve's fault. When one is afraid to touch one's code in order to add functionality, that's a giant red flag.

I also get the business requirements (constraints) inherent in this business case. This is WiF, not Halo 3. The business case warrants only so many manual resources. And, I could go on about risk mitigation in the first iterations such that makes regression testing as cheap and painless as possible. But, I'll only mention that one sentence because I recognize that it is not my place to come in as an after-the-fact, 20/20 hindsight, laser pointer, stranger, to possible erroneous decisions. Software development only ever came into the discussion because Steve brought it up, and only as an ad hominem argument against me.

As an individual I hope all the stakeholders make oodles of money, and they'd deserve it. I don't begrudge anyone their due. As an owner of MWiF, I'm hoping I've pulled enough levers such that the marketing and economics guides the product managers to ensure that MWiF is a computerized version of ADG WiF and not its own offshoot--as it most definitely is right now--and in a reasonable (not 3-5 years) timeframe. I know you have NetPlay to fix, and extend it to 6 players, and PBEM is a biggie, hence the title of my original post, "don't forget the etc."
.

(in reply to jomni)
Post #: 59
RE: Don't forget the "etc." - 11/13/2013 1:35:17 AM   
Lingering Frey

 

Posts: 45
Joined: 2/16/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jomni


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lingering Frey


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joseignacio


quote:

ORIGINAL: jomni

Well the product page indicates World in Flames Final Edition. What is that?


That's the name they gave to the 2004 edition, I believe. But there have been others since.


World in Flames - Final Edition (Both Classic and Deluxe) came out in 1996. (I have 3 copies in my closet and I double checked the date.)

The rule booklet introduction explicitly states that ADG intends it to be the final version of WiF.


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


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

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

(in reply to jomni)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> RE: Don't forget the "etc." Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
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

0.163