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: When?

 
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: When? Page: <<   < prev  72 73 [74] 75 76   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: When? - 12/18/2010 1:39:26 PM   
abb

 

Posts: 1
Joined: 12/18/2010
Status: offline
Hi all
Newcomer
This neverending story is fascinating
Any chance to become beta tester? Any help would be appreciated I guess, I'd like to jump in

(in reply to nanorider426)
Post #: 2191
RE: When? - 12/20/2010 3:00:01 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 21312
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: abb

Hi all
Newcomer
This neverending story is fascinating
Any chance to become beta tester? Any help would be appreciated I guess, I'd like to jump in

Welcome to the forum.

Thank you for offering to help.

We are not taking on new beta testers at this time. I expect the next recruitment period will be in late February or early March of 2011. At that time I will post a request for volunteers and leave the application period open for ~9 days. So check in on the forum once a week to see if applicants are being requested.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to abb)
Post #: 2192
RE: When? - 12/21/2010 11:39:47 PM   
philturco

 

Posts: 299
Joined: 11/14/2005
Status: offline
Please can someone give me an approximate time of release for this game? Are we talking months? a year? several years? I was very excited a couple yrs ago when I first heard about this game. We wait and wait and wait...and nothing happens. What's the big hold up? Will this game ever be ready?

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 2193
RE: When? - 12/23/2010 4:17:56 AM   
rkr1958


Posts: 13741
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
I used to play golf 3 days a week before starting work on MWIF, but over the past 4 years I have only played twice. I had a 6 handicap so I usually shot in the 70's.
I found that a bit sad. If I had a vote in this, which I don't, and if it mattered, which it doesn't, I would vote for you playing a minimum of 6 times a month. Life's too short to give up something that you obviously enjoyed so much and are good at.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 2194
RE: When? - 12/23/2010 5:02:43 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 21312
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
I used to play golf 3 days a week before starting work on MWIF, but over the past 4 years I have only played twice. I had a 6 handicap so I usually shot in the 70's.
I found that a bit sad. If I had a vote in this, which I don't, and if it mattered, which it doesn't, I would vote for you playing a minimum of 6 times a month. Life's too short to give up something that you obviously enjoyed so much and are good at.


Well, I guess one sign that I am getting close to done is if I start playing golf again. I would have to go back to the driving range for at least a month though - that and practice putting would be necessary. Otherwise I would be infuriated the whole time I was on the course.

What is difficult about playing golf while MWIF remains unfinished is waiting. You wait to get to the first tee, for the people in front of you to hit their tee shots, reach the green, putt out, ... In all those idle moments, I think about what I could be getting done on MWIF.

One of the last times I was on a golf course was as a caddy at a Pro-Am here in Honolulu. By the luck of the draw I was caddying for a woman (amateur) who had won the Women's Canadian Open ~10 years previously. She hit her first shot out-of-bounds for a 2 stroke penalty. But then she proceeded to make par on the first hole (not counting the penalty) and played the rest of the round at even par - very impressive.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 2195
RE: When? - 12/23/2010 3:19:35 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 13741
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
I used to play golf 3 days a week before starting work on MWIF, but over the past 4 years I have only played twice. I had a 6 handicap so I usually shot in the 70's.
I found that a bit sad. If I had a vote in this, which I don't, and if it mattered, which it doesn't, I would vote for you playing a minimum of 6 times a month. Life's too short to give up something that you obviously enjoyed so much and are good at.


Well, I guess one sign that I am getting close to done is if I start playing golf again. I would have to go back to the driving range for at least a month though - that and practice putting would be necessary. Otherwise I would be infuriated the whole time I was on the course.

What is difficult about playing golf while MWIF remains unfinished is waiting. You wait to get to the first tee, for the people in front of you to hit their tee shots, reach the green, putt out, ... In all those idle moments, I think about what I could be getting done on MWIF.

One of the last times I was on a golf course was as a caddy at a Pro-Am here in Honolulu. By the luck of the draw I was caddying for a woman (amateur) who had won the Women's Canadian Open ~10 years previously. She hit her first shot out-of-bounds for a 2 stroke penalty. But then she proceeded to make par on the first hole (not counting the penalty) and played the rest of the round at even par - very impressive.

I used to play a bit in my late 20's but haven't played in over 20-years. At the time I was single and we were learning. I did break 90 once (shot at 88) but mostly I would shot around 100. I considered it a good round if I broke 100. We may have scored high but we were fast. We would finish our rounds in 4-hours or less, assuming we didn't have to wait for the foursome in front of us. That's why we tried to always be the first of the tee. I could only dream of what it was like to play with a 6 handicap. Maybe you could get some frustration out at the driving range. You don't have to wait for anyone there to hit.

< Message edited by rkr1958 -- 12/23/2010 3:20:05 PM >

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 2196
RE: When? - 1/1/2011 6:24:43 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 21312
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
January 1, 2011 Status Report for Matrix Games’ MWIF Forum

Accomplishments of December 2010
Project Management
I monitored all the threads in the MWIF World in Flames forum daily.

I restructured by task list so the items needed to completely debug Solitaire play have highest priority. There are 169 bugs remaining for that and I am driving to fix them all by February 1st. Since there were 460+ at the high water mark this past summer, this is doable if I do not get distracted by other issues. To kill off 6 per day is my goal. Attached is my current spreadsheet on the bugs remaining [the bug counts don’t match because the spreadsheet contains items for the other modes of play].

The other big news is that Mitchell has volunteered to help with the MWIF programming. The MWIF code has a steep learning curve but he has overcome the first hurdles of installing/upgrading Delphi, Theme Engine, and the JEDI library. He can now recompile and link the MWIF source code to generate the MWIF.exe. That is not a minor achievement. You’ll find his summary of progress below in the section on NetPlay.

Hardware and Software
Mitchell is also doing detailed timing studies on why Theme Engine takes so long to switch between major powers. Once we have figured out where the time goes (lyrics from a 1960's song), we’ll be able to make changes. It is fruitless to make changes to Theme Engine and just hope they solve the problem.

I converted the Main menu from standard Windows style to Theme Engine. So, aside from the above problem, Theme Engine now runs cleanly under Win XP, Vista, and Win 7.

Beta Testing
I released versions 7.00.01 (6 fixes), 7.00.02 (20 fixes), 7.00.04 (14 fixes), 7.00.05 (21 fixes), 7.00.06 (6 fixes), 7.00.07 (14 fixes), 7.00.08 (10 fixes), 7.01.00 (11 fixes), and 7.01.01 (10 fixes), to the beta testers last month. This totals 9 new versions and 112 fixes, which is above average for both new versions and fixes. I changed the numbering to 7.01.00 because the patch count was getting pretty high for 7.00.

I removed all the calls to Scrap Unit Digression and added the new phase Scrap Destroyed Units so it precedes the Production phase. This had the unexpected benefit of maintaining a list of destroyed units for the turn that players can review. It only took a couple of minutes to add that list to the Pools form (where you can also view units in production, in construction, repair, scrapped, etc.).

I cleaned up all known bugs related to Stay-at-Sea and Sentry status. The later is a feature of the computer game which has a dual purpose: (1) skipping Sentry units when cycling through all the units that can move in a phase, and (2) during the stay at sea phases, those marked as Sentry automatically stay at sea.

I reduced the land movement bugs from 26 to 10. Some of these dated back to 2006. See the paragraphs on Player Interface below for more details.

Fatal errors are becoming more and more scarce and quickly corrected. I fixed a rather infamous one from CWIF that occurred during Vichy formation.

Saved Games
Saving and restoring games remains stable. I had to add a few more variables to the saved game format to handle changes to the player interface for land movement (see below).

Map and Units
Rob continues to send me updates of the naval unit writeups. Otherwise the data and graphics for the map and units are unchanged.

Scenarios and Optional Rules
I added code to handle specific rules for declarations of war in the Day of Infamy scenario.

MWIF Game Engine and CWIF Conversion
I reworked all the code and internal data related to transported units. Some of this involved renaming variables and functions so that I could read the code more easily. I did find redundant code and I cleaned up a lot of other stuff that was messy. One helpful change, purely cosmetic, concerned the 250+ references to TransportedBy being equal to nil or not. I changed “TransportedBy <> nil” to Aboard Transport and “TransportedBy = nil” to Not Aboard Transport. Removing the reverse negation really helps when reading the code. That is, in the CWIF code “not equal nil” implies the unit is aboard a transport, or more simply, ‘not’ implies ‘is’. It is very easy to misread logic sequences that contain what I am calling “reverse negation expressions”.

Another example of a CWIF reverse negation expression was the Ignore Notional Unit form. The defending player was asked if he wanted to ignore the notional unit in an invasion/paradrop. If you answered No, then the notional unit was added to the defending units: ‘no’ implies ‘add’. This past October (November?) I revised that form so the question now is “do you want to include the notional unit?”, so ‘yes’ implies ‘add’. It’s now named the Include Notional Unit form.

I also built an enumeration list of the possible relationships a unit might have in regard to transporting or being transported by another unit. CWIF used “if ... then ...” logic sequences to make these determinations (in hundreds of places). With the enumerated list, MWIF code replaces those with a single case statement based on TransType. Here are my in-line comments on the enumerated list values:

TransType is used to record the linkages between units that are transporting other units, transported by other units, or have recently unloaded from another unit.
• trtyIng1 - Self is currently transporting 1 unit.
• trtyIng2 - Self is currently transporting 2 units.
• trtyIng1U - Self is currently transporting 1 unit, but it had been transporting a second. Self is a non-carrier naval unit.
• trtyUnloaded1 - Self (a naval unit) unloaded 1 unit after moving.
• trtyUnloaded2 - Self (a naval unit) unloaded 2 units after moving.
• trtyBy1 - Self is currently transported by 1 unit.
• trtyBy2 - Self is currently transported by 2 air transports.
• trtyByR - Self is currently transported by a carrier & rebased from a different carrier in the AirRebase phase.
• trtyNormalUnload - Self unloaded from a naval transport that returned to port or Self unloaded from an air transport that was aborted in the Paradrop or AirTransport phases.
• trtyFromUnload - Self (a land unit) unloaded from a naval transport in the UnloadLandUnits phase.
• trtyFromInv - Self unloaded from a naval transport in the current or immediately previous Invasion phase.
• trtyFromAirRebase - Self (an air unit) unloaded from a naval transport or carrier in the AirRebase phase.
• trtyFromCarrier - Self is a carrier air unit either flying an air mission or engaged in a naval air combat.

□ In all the above cases the other units are stored in TransLink[1] and TransLink[2].
□ In the trtyBy2 case, TransLink[1] and TransLink[2] both have a TransType of trtyIng1, even though they are only carrying half of the transported unit.
□ In the trtyByR case, TransLink[1] is the current carrier and TransLink[2] is the carrier Self was aboard at the start of the phase.
□ In the trtyFrom and trtyNormalUnload cases, the TransLink[1] value is used to undo the move.
□ In the trtyFromInv case, the TransLink[1] value is used to determine from which section box the unit is invading.
□ In the trtyFromCarrier case, the TransLink[1] value is used when the player wants the carrier air unit to return to the carrier from which it started the mission.


What motivated me to spend a week making these changes was the difficulty in debugging the code related to undoing air and naval moves when transported units were involved. Picking units up from coastal hexes during naval movement was particularly complex. For example, in a single move, a transport could start empty in a port, go out to sea, then go through a different port and pick up a division and then go out to sea again, stop, and pick up a carrier air unit from a coastal hex. Then the player decides to cancel/undo the move - so the program logic has to be capable of getting all the units back to their correct starting points. As you can see from the above list, that is only one of the dozens of possible air and naval moves that require special code so the move can be correctly ‘undone’.

Once all the changes to the transported unit code were made, I was able to clean up ~10 bugs related to transported units painlessly, and in the sure knowledge that the changes weren’t going to mess up any of the other cases in the above enumerated list.

I revised the code for placing units in off-city hexes when that optional rule is in effect. This change was to accommodate more than 1 major power placing units during the Reinforcements phase. The CWIF code assumed there would only be 1 major power doing that at a time, but with NetPlay there could be as many as 6 major powers doing so simultaneously. Therefore, there needed to be separate variables for each major power instead of a single variable. This affected a lot of variables, especially in save and restore game. It is also why the version 07.00.03 was never uploaded. I made the new changes to GameSaveRestore for 07.00.04.

Player Interface
I added names to the Unit Data Panel, so transported units identify which unit(s) they are carrying and transported units identify by which unit(s) they are being carried.

I identified a dozen queries where the player may want to examine the map and other forms before answering the question. For example, when Germany is deciding whether to grant the USSR’s claim on the Finnish borderlands, checking the disposition of the USSR forces is a good idea. Instead of these queries being shown on a modal form (which freezes the player interface until the question is answered), they are now shown using a non-modal form, so the player can dilly dally about looking into every unit stack on the map before making these decisions (as he might infuriatingly do in an over-the-board game).

I added double-left-click to select all naval units in the Setup Tray. This is in lieu of Ctrl A for selecting all units. The units selected are those shown using the setup tray’s filter (e.g., just battleships). The purpose here is to enable a player to select a large number of naval units for placement without having to click on individual units. Selecting all air units is difficult to design and code because of the need to decide which units go to the reserve pool. And selecting all land units doesn't make a lot of sense because of stacking limitations. So, this feature is just for naval units.

I added a unit menu item “Return from Whence” for air units that fly missions. Clicking on this menu item returns the air unit to the hex or carrier from which it started the mission. This saves a lot of time if you simply want air units to go back to their original air base/carrier. That’s especially true when you have a lot of carrier air units returning from a naval air combat. In combination with the Selectable Units form, which lists all the air units returning to base, players can complete a return to base subphase quickly, without little effort.

I clarified the anti-aircraft results form by adding some more information. I decided when a person who has been an active beta tester for CWIF and MWIF (over 12 years) gets confused, it is time to change the displayed information.

Lastly, I made final decisions concerning the player interface for land movement and wrote new code for about half of them. These problems were identified early in my work on MWIF, in 2005 and early 2006. But I had a lot of other things that needed to be done first, so I have let them simmer for years. Occasionally the topics would surface again in the beta tester development forum, but they were very thorny issues and intricately interrelated. I am now confident that I have solutions for all of them and I am working on writing the code to implement them. The problems were:
1. Partial movement of a unit such that the unit has movement points remaining. This occurs when a stack overruns enemy units and still has movement points remaining. The stack’s move can be interrupted by a digression to rebase overrun units.
2. Undoing moves.
3. Friendly and enemy units whose supply status changes during the phase.
4. Overstacking.

Our primary goal is to make MWIF play like the board game. While the WIF FE rules impose rigid restrictions on what can and can not be done, in practice over-the-board players use looser rule interpretations. It is common practice to let a player “take back” several moves during the land movement phase, as long as nothing substantial has happened and everyone can agree on where the units started the phase. Likewise, swapping units between hexes that are fully stacked is usually permitted, as long as the overstacking is corrected by the end of the ‘step’. But enabling these abilities lends itself to potential abuse by players of MWIF. Hence the need to define exactly what is and is not permitted for the above 4 items. For details, see section 8.4.5.1 of the Players Manual, which is appended to the end of this report.

Internet - NetPlay
From Mitchell (edited by Steve):

Steve asked me to see what I could do to get NetPlay fleshed out sufficiently to start testing MWIF’s multi-player modes: NetPlay and PBEM. Being new to the project, this meant coming up to speed on the Delphi IDE, the Indy socket library, and the earlier version of NetPlayComTest. After much experimentation, I developed several interim NetPlayComTest versions and tested them in small group sessions, culminating at the end of the month with uploading NetPlayComTest version 1.2.0.0 for all the beta testers to test. Feedback from the beta testers running NetPlayComTest on a variety of network setups will enable me to validate a final version of NetPlayComTest. Then that code can be integrated into MWIF’s NetPlay. [Note that NetPlayComTest will be a stand alone executable for delivery with the released MWIF product, so players can test their internet communications without having to run a MWIF game.]

A key concept for NetPlay is that one or two of the players’ computers act as a server. NetPlay supports from two to six players, with one player on each side acting as Leader for that side. Each Leader’s computer can act as a server (in the network sense) for his side, and one Leader’s computer is the game’s Master server. The Master server keeps the master record of game state, marshals communication between players and sides, makes die rolls, etcetera. Which player’s computer acts as Master and/or Leader depends on the scenario played, the number of players, and possibly the stage the game is in. For example, one server is sufficient unless there are 4 or more players in the game.

Having a player’s computer act as the game server is a different architecture from what many online games employ, where there is usually one or more dedicated servers/machines that each player logs into. While this common approach scales well and so can support massively multi-player games, it lacks the kind of flexibility desired for MWIF. MWIF contains many features that will help make the speed of play comparable to WIF, the board game, but MWIF playing sessions are still likely to be protracted affairs. To maintain maximum flexibility in the event of lost connections, players having to log off and back on for various reasons, and so on, NetPlay is designed so that any player may act as the game Master and/or side Leader as the game progresses and players (or even all players on one side) leave and rejoin a game. This architecture is a challenge to implement programmatically but doable, and it should serve well for the style of play MWIF demands.

The state of NetPlay development as of 31 December 2010 is summed up in the functionality of the latest NetPlayComTest version: up to six computers on a LAN and/or the Internet can establish communication through NetPlay and use the link to send and receive message packets reliably for extended periods.

Steve had already set up a framework in MWIF for building the necessary message packets containing game state and event information, so adding the communication functions from the test utility should bring us very close to testing MWIF multi-player modes. The next steps in NetPlay development are:
1. Add a NetPlay setup dialog to allow entry of IP Addresses associated with each player and to keep track of which players are the game Master and Leaders, and who is playing which Major Power Group. This information will persist in an associated INI file that can also be used by MWIF.
2. Set up and attempt to establish connections automatically based on information read from the INI file.
3. Attempt to reestablish communication links if and/or when they are dropped.
4. Reassign computer roles of game Master and Leaders if players, or a whole side, drops out intentionally or unintentionally, temporarily or for the duration of that gaming session.
5. Add PBEM simulation, replacing TCP message transactions with programmatically generated email messages but using the same logical player framework outlined above.
6. Integrate everything back into the MWIF code base, replacing test messages with the Game Record Log messages, support for game re-synch from the Master, chat between players and among each side, etcetera.

Please let us know what you would like to see in the way of inter-player communication support.


PBEM
Once Mitchell gets the NetPlay communications working, he’ll do the same for the PBEM communications.

Artificial Intelligence (AI)
Nothing new.

Player’s Manual
I added new subsections in the Player Interface section, specifically addressing how to move land, naval, and air units. While the description of the keyboard and mouse commands is accurate and complete, it doesn’t really answer the questions new players are likely to have about how to “get things done”. I’ve appended the new subsection on moving land units to the end of this report. I still need to write similar subsections for moving naval and air units.

Tutorials, Training Videos, and Context Sensitive Help
Nothing new.

Historical Video, Music, and Sound Effects
Nothing new.

Marketing
Paul is now the administrator for the fan site.

Communications
Nothing new.

===========================
8.4.5.1 Land Movement
Left clicking on a selectable land unit during the land movement phase transfers it to the “moving stack”, which, if you are familiar with board war games, you can think of as “picking up a unit”. The cursor then displays the selected unit which is no longer shown in the hex it had been occupying. As you move the cursor over the map, the cursor superimposes a target symbol (circle inside a cross) onto the image of the moving unit to indicate a valid destination hex. For invalid hexes, a large X is superimposed. At the bottom of the Main form, a text message augments the cursor’s information. For example, for a valid destination hex, the number of movement points required to enter the hex is shown. If a destination is invalid, the text message explains why.

Default Path
The easiest way to move a unit is to “pick one up” and left click on a destination hex. The program finds the fastest path to the destination hex. Here fastest means the path that requires the fewest movement points. Although visually the unit appears to ‘jump’ from its original hex to the destination hex, in actuality the program moves the unit along the fastest path, just as if you had moved the unit one hex at a time.

Precise Path
If you do not want to use the program’s chosen path, you can control which hexes the unit enters by holding down the Ctrl key and left clicking on each hex in the path you want the unit to traverse. In fact, you can combine these two methods. For instance you could use the Ctrl key and click on the first hex in the path and then release the Ctrl key and click on a final destination hex several hexes away. Entering a precise path for a unit is often done by the German player when advancing through Russia to make sure that control of every hex changes from the USSR to Germany.

Group Movement
If you want to move several units as a group (e.g., to conduct an overrun) you can either select them using the Flyouts form (see section 8.4.6), the Units in Hex form (see section 8.7.1.24), or using Ctrl-Left-Click in the unit’s start hex (see section 11.8). All the units you select have to have started the impulse in the same hex. Once you have selected a group of units, you move them the same way you move a single unit.

Partial Movement and Overruns
You can move a unit to a preliminary destination hex and then pick it up again and move it to a final destination hex. In fact, this is what happens when you hold down the Ctrl key to enter a precise path. This ability is most important when you conduct an overrun. After the defending units have been destroyed, captured, or forced to rebase in an overrun hex, you can continue to move the overrunning units by picking them up again, provided they have movement points remaining. Because of the zones of control rules, for some overruns you may have to first use the Ctrl key to move your units to the hex adjacent to the hex you want to overrun and then pick them up again and click on the overrun hex.

Once you have completed moving a unit or stack of units and picked up a different unit, you can no longer go back to the first group and move them again. This is true even if the first group still has unused movement points. This is how MWIF implements the Rules As Coded rule: “You must finish moving the unit(s) you are moving before you can start moving another unit”.

Undoing Moves
MWIF is somewhat forgiving in that it usually permits you to undo your moves without regard to the order in which they occurred. For example, you can move unit A, then move unit B, and then go back and undo unit A’s move. Indeed, there is a menu item on the drop down Command menu of the Main form that lets you undo all moves. There are two important exceptions to this leniency.

1. Should you conduct an overrun, then all the moves you made prior to the overrun can no longer be undone. The overrun might even have been made by one of your allies, and occurred thousands of miles away. Regardless of where and what is overrun, as soon as an overrun is performed, all land moves made previously in the impulse become permanent and can not be undone.

2. Should an out-of-supply or isolated unit have its supply status improved (e.g., from out-of-supply to in-supply), then the program marks the unit with the Improved Supply Status as ISS. If an ISS unit moves, then all moves made prior to that action are ‘frozen’. That is, you are unable to Undo any previous moves unless you first Undo the ISS unit that moved. The reason for this rule is to prevent exploitation of the Undo move to circumvent the rules by, say, (1) moving a unit to provide supply to other units, (2) moving the newly in-supply units, and then (3) undoing move #1.

Overstacking
In general, units may not overstack during land movement. However, MWIF enables temporary overstacking, primarily to enable players to rearrange units in hexes that are fully stacked. A typical instance of this is when the French have 2 corps in every hex of the Maginot Line and want to switch which units are in which hexes. To facilitate this, MWIF permits units to be overstacked when a unit, or stack of units, ends its movement. But then the next unit or stack of units that moves has to correct the overstacking. In the case of two French corps, A and B, in Metz, and two more corps, C and D, in Strasbourg (adjacent to Metz), the player is permitted to move unit A to Strasbourg, even though that causes overstacking. But then his next move has to be to move unit A, C, or D out of Strasbourg, to eliminate the overstacking.

Temporary overstacking enables you to move a stack of units from behind your lines up to a hex in your front line (which becomes temporarily overstacked) and then continue moving by overrunning units in the enemy’s front line.

Another subtlety of land movement and overstacking is when an HQ or an engineer has been used to enable air units to overstack in a hex. Moving the HQ or engineer out of the hex would then cause the air units in the hex to be overstacked. MWIF permits this overstacking to occur, and permits it to remain in effect until the end of the land movement phase. So, if you move an HQ out of a hex, causing air units to be overstacked, later in the phase you can move another HQ (or an engineer) into the hex, thereby negating the overstacking. Failure to correct the overstacking by the end of the land movement phase means the owner of the air units has to chose which air unit(s) to destroy.





Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 2197
RE: When? - 1/1/2011 6:30:06 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 37613
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
Steve / Mitchell

This is a highly encouraging report, and a great way to start 2011

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 2198
RE: When? - 1/1/2011 9:58:03 PM   
finchen

 

Posts: 3
Joined: 1/1/2011
Status: offline
I stumbled across this 1 week ago , and can honestly say that had I found it 2, 3 or 5 years ago I would have had suffert extreme stress traumata meanwhile, I used to play WiF for years, but now having moved to another country and beeing married with children I lack a) people in my neighbourhood to play with and b) space to setup and leave the map for a couple of weeks without someone potentially destroying it.
A computer game version would be the answer to all my hopes.
I would like to offer my help to get the game done, besides having some WiF experience, I am quite familliar with WW2 History and am a professional software engeneer, having programmed in Delphi until 2006 (Delphi 7 then).

If there is anything I can do within my free time, pls tell me.


_____________________________

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

"Germany has concluded a Non-Aggression Pact with Poland... We shall adhere to it unconditionally... we recognize Poland as the home of a great and nationally conscious people."
Adolf Hitler

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 2199
RE: When? - 1/1/2011 11:13:09 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 21312
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: finchen

I stumbled across this 1 week ago , and can honestly say that had I found it 2, 3 or 5 years ago I would have had suffert extreme stress traumata meanwhile, I used to play WiF for years, but now having moved to another country and beeing married with children I lack a) people in my neighbourhood to play with and b) space to setup and leave the map for a couple of weeks without someone potentially destroying it.
A computer game version would be the answer to all my hopes.
I would like to offer my help to get the game done, besides having some WiF experience, I am quite familliar with WW2 History and am a professional software engeneer, having programmed in Delphi until 2006 (Delphi 7 then).

If there is anything I can do within my free time, pls tell me.


Welcome to the forum.

I'll send you a PM (personal message) about helping program.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to finchen)
Post #: 2200
RE: When? - 1/2/2011 12:11:18 AM   
Terminus


Posts: 41452
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
I personally think that Shannon should stop coming to this forum at all. That way, he has more time to code, and everybody has a bigger shot at seeing this game FINALLY come out.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 2201
RE: When? - 1/2/2011 12:41:29 AM   
V22 Osprey


Posts: 1593
Joined: 4/8/2008
From: Corona, CA
Status: offline
It's 2011. If this game isn't released this year I might give up on it. Thankfully I have WitE and WitP:AE PBEMs to keep me busy.

_____________________________


Art by rogueusmc.

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 2202
RE: When? - 1/2/2011 2:56:17 AM   
wworld7


Posts: 1726
Joined: 2/25/2003
From: The Nutmeg State
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

I personally think that Shannon should stop coming to this forum at all. That way, he has more time to code, and everybody has a bigger shot at seeing this game FINALLY come out.


You know if he followed your advice he would be hammered by more people than he is now.

More ideas like this one and I will have to serve BBQ Terminus at our next management meeting...

_____________________________

Flipper

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 2203
RE: When? - 1/2/2011 3:22:36 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 21312
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

I personally think that Shannon should stop coming to this forum at all. That way, he has more time to code, and everybody has a bigger shot at seeing this game FINALLY come out.

Most of the monthly status report is taken from stuff I have written/prepared previously, either for the beta testers or for Matrix Games management. In fact, the monthly report serves as a primary communication from me to Matrix about the project.

Assembling the report helps me understand what has happened in the past month, when the days all seem to run together and I lose track of what day of the week it is.

In general, keeping in touch with the customer base is important for my sanity.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 2204
RE: When? - 1/2/2011 3:36:32 AM   
CrusssDaddy

 

Posts: 331
Joined: 8/6/2004
Status: offline
Ah, well here we go! Years too late but at least now sanity prevails, and the imbecilic notion that there is only one human being on the entire planet capable of programming this game has been abandoned.

I wonder who shook Steve to his senses?


(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 2205
RE: When? - 1/2/2011 1:18:58 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41452
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: flipperwasirish


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

I personally think that Shannon should stop coming to this forum at all. That way, he has more time to code, and everybody has a bigger shot at seeing this game FINALLY come out.


You know if he followed your advice he would be hammered by more people than he is now.

More ideas like this one and I will have to serve BBQ Terminus at our next management meeting...


But he wouldn't SEE it, which is kinda the point.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to wworld7)
Post #: 2206
RE: When? - 1/3/2011 11:49:13 AM   
BallyJ

 

Posts: 142
Joined: 5/25/2008
Status: offline
I would like to add my small voice to support the addition of another body to work on this project.
Welldone.
More brains working has got to be a good thing.
good luck.

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 2207
RE: When? - 1/4/2011 2:32:58 PM   
gw15


Posts: 705
Joined: 3/21/2010
Status: offline
I have been following this forum ever since Matrix took on this project and played WIF from the beginning. I am by nature a very patient person but I must say that this project has gone on far too long. You can tell that many others are losing interest because the postings on this forum have dropped significantly down over the years to the point there is only 1 or 2 per day and some days none.
Matrix publishes quality games but this game needs to be published by the summer and the AI can wait as a follow up.

Steve - push for the summer or you risk losing even die hard fans of WIF's like me.

(in reply to BallyJ)
Post #: 2208
RE: When? - 1/4/2011 2:55:38 PM   
smudge56

 

Posts: 667
Joined: 1/17/2009
From: UK
Status: offline
Well I've been following the progress for years and I cannot wait however long it takes.

(in reply to abb)
Post #: 2209
RE: When? - 1/4/2011 6:14:09 PM   
Skanvak

 

Posts: 577
Joined: 4/3/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: finchen

I stumbled across this 1 week ago , and can honestly say that had I found it 2, 3 or 5 years ago I would have had suffert extreme stress traumata meanwhile, I used to play WiF for years, but now having moved to another country and beeing married with children I lack a) people in my neighbourhood to play with and b) space to setup and leave the map for a couple of weeks without someone potentially destroying it.
A computer game version would be the answer to all my hopes.
I would like to offer my help to get the game done, besides having some WiF experience, I am quite familliar with WW2 History and am a professional software engeneer, having programmed in Delphi until 2006 (Delphi 7 then).

If there is anything I can do within my free time, pls tell me.



That the best news of the years if real support can be given. Steve need help.

_____________________________


Best regards

Skanvak

(in reply to finchen)
Post #: 2210
RE: When? - 1/4/2011 6:49:12 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 37613
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Skanvak


quote:

ORIGINAL: finchen

I stumbled across this 1 week ago , and can honestly say that had I found it 2, 3 or 5 years ago I would have had suffert extreme stress traumata meanwhile, I used to play WiF for years, but now having moved to another country and beeing married with children I lack a) people in my neighbourhood to play with and b) space to setup and leave the map for a couple of weeks without someone potentially destroying it.
A computer game version would be the answer to all my hopes.
I would like to offer my help to get the game done, besides having some WiF experience, I am quite familliar with WW2 History and am a professional software engeneer, having programmed in Delphi until 2006 (Delphi 7 then).

If there is anything I can do within my free time, pls tell me.



That the best news of the years if real support can be given. Steve need help.

Warspite1

You mean best news for days - did you see that Mitchell is assisting Steve aleady (see monthly report)?

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to Skanvak)
Post #: 2211
RE: When? - 1/7/2011 12:49:37 PM   
WIF_Killzone

 

Posts: 277
Joined: 4/30/2009
Status: offline
Note sure if anyone has noticed, but the January status report requested a call to arms:

"Please let us know what you would like to see in the way of inter-player communication support."

Keep up the good work.

< Message edited by WIF_Killzone -- 1/7/2011 12:50:06 PM >

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 2212
RE: When? - 1/7/2011 2:24:42 PM   
micheljq


Posts: 793
Joined: 3/31/2008
From: Quebec
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: WIF_Killzone

Note sure if anyone has noticed, but the January status report requested a call to arms:

"Please let us know what you would like to see in the way of inter-player communication support."

Keep up the good work.


Maybe Vassal could be used as an example?

_____________________________

Michel Desjardins,
"Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious" - Oscar Wilde
"History is a set of lies agreed upon" - Napoleon Bonaparte after the battle of Waterloo, june 18th, 1815

(in reply to WIF_Killzone)
Post #: 2213
RE: When? - 1/7/2011 4:09:45 PM   
undercovergeek

 

Posts: 1526
Joined: 11/21/2006
From: UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Skanvak


quote:

ORIGINAL: finchen

I stumbled across this 1 week ago , and can honestly say that had I found it 2, 3 or 5 years ago I would have had suffert extreme stress traumata meanwhile, I used to play WiF for years, but now having moved to another country and beeing married with children I lack a) people in my neighbourhood to play with and b) space to setup and leave the map for a couple of weeks without someone potentially destroying it.
A computer game version would be the answer to all my hopes.
I would like to offer my help to get the game done, besides having some WiF experience, I am quite familliar with WW2 History and am a professional software engeneer, having programmed in Delphi until 2006 (Delphi 7 then).

If there is anything I can do within my free time, pls tell me.



That the best news of the years if real support can be given. Steve need help.

Warspite1

You mean best news for days - did you see that Mitchell is assisting Steve aleady (see monthly report)?


why the sudden change of heart?

how many people for how long have been asking - why cant someone else give Steve a hand. Has Steve simply got to a point and realised this is two big for 1 man, has somebody said this has to be out of the door by xxxx date, or has Steve listened to the community and thought - hey thats a good idea

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 2214
RE: When? - 1/7/2011 5:32:13 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 21312
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: undercovergeek


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Skanvak


quote:

ORIGINAL: finchen

I stumbled across this 1 week ago , and can honestly say that had I found it 2, 3 or 5 years ago I would have had suffert extreme stress traumata meanwhile, I used to play WiF for years, but now having moved to another country and beeing married with children I lack a) people in my neighbourhood to play with and b) space to setup and leave the map for a couple of weeks without someone potentially destroying it.
A computer game version would be the answer to all my hopes.
I would like to offer my help to get the game done, besides having some WiF experience, I am quite familliar with WW2 History and am a professional software engeneer, having programmed in Delphi until 2006 (Delphi 7 then).

If there is anything I can do within my free time, pls tell me.



That the best news of the years if real support can be given. Steve need help.

Warspite1

You mean best news for days - did you see that Mitchell is assisting Steve aleady (see monthly report)?


why the sudden change of heart?

how many people for how long have been asking - why cant someone else give Steve a hand. Has Steve simply got to a point and realised this is two big for 1 man, has somebody said this has to be out of the door by xxxx date, or has Steve listened to the community and thought - hey thats a good idea

The answers are rather simple.

1 - I have been trying (unsuccessfully) to get another programmer to work on NetPlay for the past 4 years. In the end I did a lot of the beginning work myself. Mitchell has improved upon my start and has the code for MWIF's internet communications ready for serious beta testing.

2 - But to go into the depths of the MWIF code means climbing an enormous learning curve. Besides the programmer having to acquire all that knowledge, there is also the time required by me to provide assistance for him understanding what the code does. Over the years (ye gads!) I have: inserted tens of thousands of comments (CWIF had 2 comment lines), renamed hundreds of variables and functions (so they make more sense - CWIF had hundreds of routines called Check and Fix), redesigned dozens of fundamental data structures, and restructured dozens of major logic sequences. These changes were so I could understand what the code does every time I come back to reread it. But the net result is that the level of difficulty in understanding the code has been reduced 2 or 3 orders of magnitude.

As it stands now MWIF has 5 times the number of modules (Pascal files) that CWIF had, because I have fragmented monolithic files into ones that are more focused on sections of the logic. When you want to locate the code for moving naval units, the bulk of it is in a 1000 line file devoted to that task, instead of a 6000 line file that has the code for moving all units, plus a ton of other stuff. Likewise, the code for the processing logic for each phase of the game is spread over 60 modules, one for each phase, rather than combined into a single file, with the code for initialization, processing, and termination of the different phases interleaved. You can think of the CWIF code as analogous to a combination of 60 reference books with all their pages shuffled together. Each page is understandable in its own right, but putting together the sense of any one topic requires searching around and finding all the cross references.

Even now, however, I do not feel comfortabe with having someone else make changes to the player interface code, because it is still very delicate (numerous inter-linkages). Unless a person has complete mastery of the overall picture, making changes just causes new bugs to pop up in unexpected places.

3 - The code for different modes of play is mostly distinct from the code for the player interface and the game simulation (e.g., map, units, and rules). So having other people work on NetPlay, PBEM, and the AIO does not require as deep an understanding of the vast majority of the code. I can say that with confidence because one of my redesigns was to make sure that was true.

4 - So the idea of having 4+ people working on the original CWIF code simultaneously was not a good one (in my opinion). A lot of time would have been spent communicating with each other about partially formed impressions as to what the code did. Making changes without keeping everyone else fully informed would have been very dangerous. Maybe 2 people could have been more productive, but no where near times 2. More likely times 1.5 or less. In retrospect, I could now devise a system for dividing the labor efficiently, but there was no way I (or anyone else) could have done so back in 2005.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to undercovergeek)
Post #: 2215
RE: When? - 1/8/2011 4:28:05 PM   
npilgaard

 

Posts: 166
Joined: 5/3/2006
Status: offline
Thanks, Steve, for yet another year of hard work from you on the MWiF behemoth.
As always, your status reports commenting on the progress are much appreciated - it provides some insight regarding the scope of this massive undertaking, and allows for following the progress step by step.

And it is indeed a massive undertaking! Thanks for enduring!!



_____________________________

Regards
Nikolaj

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 2216
RE: When? - 1/8/2011 5:07:30 PM   
HenrytheSecond


Posts: 12
Joined: 8/9/2006
Status: offline
Having lurked across here occasionally over the last 4 years or so, I've always been extremely impressed
that the fans of Steve's computer iteration of World In Flames are so patient. If you go onto almost any
other forum for a game in development, you will find that they consist mostly of people bitching about the
release date or percieved lack of progress.

So I find it a little disappointing that some of that behaviour is creeping into this forum. I don't know Steve
and I'm certainly not the most dedicated WiF player, but I do recognise the guy has practically given up his
life for the last 5 years in order to make a decent computer game for the rest of us that are interested in
this genre.

I think it's generally recognised throughout sport/business/military/life/the universe that the best way to
contribute to a common goal is with positive action or postive support for those performing the action. Any
negativity brought to the party, however heartfelt, is not going to get this particular project finished any
quicker.

Steve, I'm sure this project has ballooned out of all proportion from your initial estimates when you agreed
to take it on. I can only admire your dedication and I truly hope when it's all done and dusted you get the
self-satisfaction and financial reward you deserve.

Regards. Jay.

_____________________________

"Every man thinks meanly of himself for not having been a soldier."
(Samuel Johnson, letter to James Boswell, 1778)

(in reply to npilgaard)
Post #: 2217
RE: When? - 1/9/2011 8:32:22 PM   
Skanvak

 

Posts: 577
Joined: 4/3/2005
Status: offline
quote:

Warspite1

You mean best news for days - did you see that Mitchell is assisting Steve aleady (see monthly report)?


You got me on this one :) That are really good news.

Steve gave a good explanation of his logic. We cannot go back in time, so let's all support the new team :)


_____________________________


Best regards

Skanvak

(in reply to HenrytheSecond)
Post #: 2218
RE: When? - 1/10/2011 5:23:43 AM   
V22 Osprey


Posts: 1593
Joined: 4/8/2008
From: Corona, CA
Status: offline
Just wondering, is there pretty good idea when this game will be released? Like a "If everything goes according to plan" type deal?

_____________________________


Art by rogueusmc.

(in reply to Skanvak)
Post #: 2219
RE: When? - 1/10/2011 6:10:42 AM   
michaelbaldur


Posts: 4483
Joined: 4/6/2007
From: denmark
Status: offline

I think there are a 90% chance of a 2011 release .. 

there are still alot of unanswered questions and thing that can go wrong.

I´m a very active beta tester and have been for 3 years.
I´m spending 20-30 hours a week on the game. and I promise you. it is looking really good.




_____________________________

the wif rulebook is my bible

I work hard, not smart.

beta tester and Mwif expert

(in reply to V22 Osprey)
Post #: 2220
Page:   <<   < prev  72 73 [74] 75 76   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> RE: When? Page: <<   < prev  72 73 [74] 75 76   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

0.250