Are We There Yet?

[Omnius]

I'm wondering as to the state of the game and when we can expect the second version to come out. I've put the game on the backburner for almost two years and am hoping to see a good solid update to the first version since the current version has a big problem in it.

I'm hoping to be able to play with oil tankers someday, hopefully sooner rather than later. Is there any ballpark idea of when we might see that? I could care less about the AI, they're just Artificial Ignorances not worth playing and I think WiF is just too complex and complicated to ever have a decent AI. I do hope the second version comes out someday soon so we can separate cargo ships from oil tanker shipping to reduce the problems of keeping trade routes from changing too much.

[Dabrion]

Still the same basically. GFX 5/10, UI/UX 2/10, WiF 2/10, Sandbox 0/10, Multiplayer 2/10 .. guarantied to have at least one crash per hour and is stuck on the 50% of RAW7 that are implemented so far plus the stupid euro scale everywhere. Some folks love it though

[Centuur]

ORIGINAL: Dabrion

Still the same basically. GFX 5/10, UI/UX 2/10, WiF 2/10, Sandbox 0/10, Multiplayer 2/10 .. guarantied to have at least one crash per hour and is stuck on the 50% of RAW7 that are implemented so far plus the stupid euro scale everywhere. Some folks love it though

I would like to give notice that this is total BS...

The standard rules I estimate are 95% coded IMHO. Crashes in solitair play are very, very rare. Netplay is about 90% ready for use (some problems with Vichy and naval combat remain to be fixed).

Now, you are right that there is no AI and that a lot of the optional rules and half map scenarios still need to be added to the game.

And I love the unified map. Far better than the map of the boardgame where playing in the Far East is concerned.

[Omnius]

Centuur,
Thanks for update. Do you have any idea as to when the 2nd version is coming out? Very approximately of course since we all know how release estimates come and go.

I too love the unified map. I'm hoping another big update comes out to fix that oil refuel problem in 2.2.8 or whatever the latest release is numbered. I didn't like the differing scales of the board game, the Asian map scale gave way to unrealistic play in china.

[paulderynck]

Don't know of any plans for a "second" version or what might be in it. We've gone from version 1 to 2.2.8 since release, pursuing the goals of bug fixing and getting NetPlay operational and AFAIK that is still the process we are following.

[Aranthus]

It's true. There are still problems with the convoy system and and with the detail map covering pop ups (my two pet peeves), but the game is in a much better place than it was when first issued. I have played a solitaire game through December 1941, without a crash. Shannon should take a bow.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Aranthus

It's true. There are still problems with the convoy system and and with the detail map covering pop ups (my two pet peeves), but the game is in a much better place than it was when first issued. I have played a solitaire game through December 1941, without a crash. Shannon should take a bow.

Thanks.[&o]

As for lowering my head - I am still a little leery of some of those players holding Samurai swords.

[pzgndr]

ORIGINAL: Omnius

I could care less about the AI, they're just Artificial Ignorances not worth playing and I think WiF is just too complex and complicated to ever have a decent AI.

This nonsense cracks me up. I remain optimistic that Steve can and will eventually implement a decent and chalkenging computer opponent. It may be a couple of years off at this rate, but that's fine. We can wait a bit longer. Looking forward to hearing complaints, "The AI is too hard, I can't beat the AI, the game won't let me cheat, etc.". Too funny.

[Dabrion]

"decent and chalkenging computer opponent" hmm .. not going to happen, whatever that means.

If you looked at the progress of the project over the last three years you would have noticed that there is none! Progress made on AI = 0. Progress made on Netplay: 0. Progress made on interface: 0. The game is the same as at release, with some game logic bugs weeded out. So, by all means stay optimistic .. I guess that means lowering the bar until it fits the sorry state of the product

[76mm]

You forgot to add progress made on half-map scenarios = 0.

As to the player above heaping praise on the game because he "played a solitaire game through December 1941, without a crash"...I'm not sure if he's serious or was joking--is being able to play to the end of 1941 without a crash three years after release really such a big achievement?

[rkr1958]

I've managed to play a half-of-dozen solitaire games through to the bitter end (36-turns) and some beyond. Playing in solitary mode, I'm currently in a game against another player and it's turn 14, Nov/Dec 1941. See tm.asp?m=4108225

Have there been crashes? Yes. Have there been issues? Yes. Has that stopped me/us? No.

Has anyone ever played a game of WiF without mistakes? I'm not talking about strategic or tactical mistakes but rule mistakes. Mistakes such as, moving units twice during an impulse, making more moves than allowed by the action type or, lord forbid, making calculation errors with respect to convoy routes, production or oil. I'd say that MWiF's enforcement of the rules is far superior and more accurate of any game WiF every played.

Now, the same strength shown by MWiF in enforcing the rules, which I'd estimate is > 99% correct, is a weakness when something goes wrong (rare, < 1%). Computer programs are notorious for that. Does that mean you can't fix those rare cases? No, it doesn't! I've figured out a way to work around those rare errors when necessary by safely editing the game file. See tm.asp?m=4136832

MWiF is a computer implementation of WiF which is a massive and complicated boardgame of WW2. In my opinion, the best game of ww2 period. I very much admire those who play the cardboard and paper and vassal versions. To understand and implement the rules as they have to do is for me an overwhelming and daunting task. One that I know I couldn’t do without many mistakes. One that would likely keep me from playing the game. That's why I'm sticking with MWiF.

What I don't understand is why some of those same people, who have mastered WiF, want to bellyache MWiF instead of pitching in and making it work. I can honestly say that if I wanted the half-map scenarios that I could figure out a way to make the global scenario work that way. Also, if there's a rule that's not implement that I wanted I could figure out a way to represent that in the version of MWiF I have.

[Dabrion]

Ronnie, I like to believe the first part of your message says a lot more about you and your mates than the product. I follow your AARs now and then ..

Second part .. you like it and that is fine.. I think I gave a fair ranking of the points I feel are important.

[AxelNL]

Netplay has improved a lot, Dab. Barbarossa can be played. Declaring Vichy used to be a no-go, but I could only get it to crash recently by not letting any colony fo free-french.

[paulderynck]

Yup, the NetPlay rating should be 7 vs 0, but only the playtesters know that, so far.

I'm not sure on the meaning of interface but again that was harsh, IMO. And to say no progress in three years means you haven't been here for three years.

[pzgndr]

ORIGINAL: Dabrion

"decent and chalkenging computer opponent" hmm .. not going to happen, whatever that means.

If you looked at the progress of the project over the last three years you would have noticed that there is none! Progress made on AI = 0. Progress made on Netplay: 0. Progress made on interface: 0. The game is the same as at release, with some game logic bugs weeded out. So, by all means stay optimistic .. I guess that means lowering the bar until it fits the sorry state of the product

In accordance with the stated priorities of bug fixing and NetPlay implementation, there has been progress. While I'd like to see more progress on the half-map scenarios, remaining optional rules implementation and AI, I understand why those have been delayed. So be it.

Lowering the bar? No. Steve himself has mentioned numerous times that he does intend to eventually implement a decent and challenging computer opponent, so unless and until he says otherwise we all have reason to stay optimistic. I'd like to start playing Fascist Tide one of these days, even solitaire, which would be challenging enough. And I will get to it someday, when the game (that I would like) is ready and I have more time to devote to it. Offhand, I'd add that there still seems to be more optimism out here than the few naysayers assert. Time will tell of course...

[Viktor_Kormel_slith]

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

I've managed to play a half-of-dozen solitaire games through to the bitter end (36-turns) and some beyond. Playing in solitary mode, I'm currently in a game against another player and it's turn 14, Nov/Dec 1941. See tm.asp?m=4108225

Have there been crashes? Yes. Have there been issues? Yes. Has that stopped me/us? No.

Has anyone ever played a game of WiF without mistakes? I'm not talking about strategic or tactical mistakes but rule mistakes. Mistakes such as, moving units twice during an impulse, making more moves than allowed by the action type or, lord forbid, making calculation errors with respect to convoy routes, production or oil. I'd say that MWiF's enforcement of the rules is far superior and more accurate of any game WiF every played.

Now, the same strength shown by MWiF in enforcing the rules, which I'd estimate is > 99% correct, is a weakness when something goes wrong (rare, < 1%). Computer programs are notorious for that. Does that mean you can't fix those rare cases? No, it doesn't! I've figured out a way to work around those rare errors when necessary by safely editing the game file. See tm.asp?m=4136832

MWiF is a computer implementation of WiF which is a massive and complicated boardgame of WW2. In my opinion, the best game of ww2 period. I very much admire those who play the cardboard and paper and vassal versions. To understand and implement the rules as they have to do is for me an overwhelming and daunting task. One that I know I couldn’t do without many mistakes. One that would likely keep me from playing the game. That's why I'm sticking with MWiF.

What I don't understand is why some of those same people, who have mastered WiF, want to bellyache MWiF instead of pitching in and making it work. I can honestly say that if I wanted the half-map scenarios that I could figure out a way to make the global scenario work that way. Also, if there's a rule that's not implement that I wanted I could figure out a way to represent that in the version of MWiF I have.

Totally agree!

[Viktor_Kormel_slith]

I have played WIF from early 90s. Before MWIF probably I started about 20 games. I remember to have finished just 2 or 3 games. In the last 3 years, I have played 7 COMPLETE games with MWIF, 5 in solitaire mode and 2 in hotseat mode. One of the hotseatmode games extended until 1950 in the most incredible and funny game That I ever played. (I started an AAR about it, called "Letters from our never ending war". We left the game, not for problems with MWIF, it was because my old computer was unable to make the supply calculus...
What I want to say is I understand the frustration of people like Dab...they are right in many things but it is not fair to say that MWIF is a complete disaster, for me and other people like me, even now, with bugs and troubles, is a very good game. One way of playing and recover old gaming friends!

[Dorb]

A more expensive version of No Man's Sky. - Both buy now and enjoy later games. (When they are done that is.) [;)]

ps - still glad I purchased both of them though.

[RFalvo69]

IMHO, the best answer is a comparison: this game is 90% "there" the way Operation Market Garden was 90% successful.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

IMHO, the best answer is a comparison: this game is 90% "there" the way Operation Market Garden was 90% successful.

warspite1

Just curious, who said MWIF was 90% "there"?