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  52 53 [54] 55 56   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: When? - 11/26/2009 9:47:49 PM   
alexvand


Posts: 380
Joined: 11/29/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline
I'm not sure I've ever posted here but let me just chime in.

I first played this game in 1995. I've dreamed of it on computer since then. I helped playtest CWIF when it was in development. I have read this forum every single week since Matrix took it over.

Steve is doing an amazing job.

I will buy this game when it is done. I've been waiting for 14 years. (And I know others who have waited longer!) I'll keep waiting.

Steve, keep up the good work. It'll be done when it's done. And thank you for sharing so transparently with us what you've been up to all this time.

(in reply to nanorider426)
Post #: 1591
RE: When? - 11/27/2009 3:47:55 AM   
bo

 

Posts: 4176
Joined: 5/1/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joseignacio


quote:

ORIGINAL: bo

Damn Jose remind me not to get on your bad side whew! El Cid must have had a errrr never mind, he sure got along with the senoritas huh, a lot of his ancestors around or within a 20 mile radius

Bo


Not trying to frighten anybody, , just answering about your comment about my supposedly meekish attitude, I have nothing to prove. And when I need to prove something I use to do it personally.

As for El Cid, I don't know how many young ladies he had, but I don't care, I was not meaning I descend from him but that I come from the land from where the steel comes for these souls.


Just teasing Jose, my cousin just got back from Spain last month he loved it beautiful country and the food oooofffa, when the hell is Sergio Garcia going to win over here?

Bo

(in reply to Joseignacio)
Post #: 1592
RE: When? - 11/27/2009 8:12:41 AM   
Joseignacio


Posts: 2449
Joined: 5/8/2009
From: Madrid, Spain
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bo


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joseignacio


quote:

ORIGINAL: bo

Damn Jose remind me not to get on your bad side whew! El Cid must have had a errrr never mind, he sure got along with the senoritas huh, a lot of his ancestors around or within a 20 mile radius

Bo


Not trying to frighten anybody, , just answering about your comment about my supposedly meekish attitude, I have nothing to prove. And when I need to prove something I use to do it personally.

As for El Cid, I don't know how many young ladies he had, but I don't care, I was not meaning I descend from him but that I come from the land from where the steel comes for these souls.


Just teasing Jose, my cousin just got back from Spain last month he loved it beautiful country and the food oooofffa, when the hell is Sergio Garcia going to win over here?

Bo


Cheers. Glad he/she had a good time.

(in reply to bo)
Post #: 1593
RE: When? - 11/27/2009 8:57:00 PM   
WIF_Killzone

 

Posts: 277
Joined: 4/30/2009
Status: offline
This is a copy of the Pm I sent to Dave:

Hi Dave,

There have been discussions recently on the World in Flames forum about a request to view the MWIF training videos.

I understand through Steve that that you would like to wait until a month prior to release to let the folks see the videos. I was hoping I could convince you to release one per week to keep interest high, as we get closer to the release date.

It woud be a great reward for the forum members continued commitment and their ongoing invaluable contribution to the product.

Thanks for you condideration.

Regards,

Craig

< Message edited by WIF_Killzone -- 11/27/2009 9:25:45 PM >

(in reply to Joseignacio)
Post #: 1594
RE: When? - 11/27/2009 9:27:27 PM   
wworld7


Posts: 1727
Joined: 2/25/2003
From: The Nutmeg State
Status: offline
I'm fine either way Dave decides.

But, how do you keep the "release" to a small group and not have them leaked to other people? And thus, possibly impacting the marketing plan.

_____________________________

Flipper

(in reply to WIF_Killzone)
Post #: 1595
RE: When? - 11/27/2009 9:45:43 PM   
WIF_Killzone

 

Posts: 277
Joined: 4/30/2009
Status: offline
I thought about a non-disclosure agreement but it probably would not be practical to implement, and even then, who would you sue.

I think I am trying to convince myself that "one-per week " would be a good marketing plan, but then I realize I may be just self-serving.

For sake of argument, let say the video gets released to u-tube, generates some interest. Then another gets released, generates some more interest (details can be found at Matrix games--nice plug). Then you have all these people browsing through Matrix, buying product, generating huge bonuses for staff, ok--maybe I'm stretching things.

(in reply to wworld7)
Post #: 1596
RE: When? - 11/28/2009 12:39:59 AM   
michaelbaldur


Posts: 4774
Joined: 4/6/2007
From: denmark
Status: offline

the training videos are very big. with long download time and everybody wanting to see them, it will be a mess ...

and within a hour they will be everywhere on the net ....

a non-disclosure agreement works fine when we talk about 30 people ...

but when we talk about 500 or 1000 people or more.

_____________________________

the wif rulebook is my bible

I work hard, not smart.

beta tester and Mwif expert

if you have questions or issues with the game, just contact me on Michaelbaldur1@gmail.com

(in reply to WIF_Killzone)
Post #: 1597
RE: When? - 11/29/2009 12:26:20 PM   
ewax

 

Posts: 4
Joined: 12/10/2005
Status: offline
Couldnt help to read this enormously interesting thread. And couldnt resist to reply a message
in the subject I am most interested in ' software design'.

I am a software engineer for at least 15 years.
I know what happens to large programs when they grow and grow and even grow to a certain 'beast' that is
unmaintainable. Meaning that changing one line of code at a certain place, introduces multiple bugs which would
never be expected nor properly fixed.

This is called 'end of life' of the software product (also software rot). Many products in the 90s (and even now ) experienced
this (windows 3.11 is one of the nicest examples), at the end fixing one bug introduced 3 new unexpected ones.
Some software products already have this when they are not even finished (the finishing of the software is
hampered by these bugs 'popping up', fixing them will create an even bigger beast etc etc.)

While I believe that a software product will always have bugs (no bugfreesoftware exists), escpecially when its
a big project.
I do believe (and know) it is possible with a good object oriented design it is possible to create large software
products that are maintainable and bug fixable (and so it will be planneable:-> 'we will have the software at date :' )

As seen many times, with a less than good design software grows and grows and the bug hunting will
get out of control (it is not possible to say anymore 'this bug will cost 2 weeks to hunt dwn and fix').

As to say I do not know anything of the software design of this product, so my remarks should not be taken as
critisism to this or any other games. They are more remarks in general.

Typically software products which are procedural in design (or lack design)
have the behaviour as described above. Object orientation is the way to go for software creation. I have used
testdriven development and am very much impressed by this (debuggers are most of the times not necessary).

Anyway.

Regards,
Ewax

(in reply to SamuraiProgrmmr)
Post #: 1598
RE: When? - 12/1/2009 11:49:40 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
December 1, 2009 Status Report for Matrix Games’ MWIF Forum

I. Project Management
I still don’t know how long it will take me to fix all the bugs, but I continue to make progress on them. In November I focused 95% of my time on fixing bugs. For December, I will continue to work primarily on fixing bugs, with a small diversion to complete the LAIO parser.

I spent several days revising my master task list. Besides redesigning how information is stored, I also grouped similar bug reports together. One major improvement is that the bugs are now listed in the order of the sequence of play. This lets me review, say, all the bugs reported concerning the Declaration of War phase, which has 9 subphases. Besides changing the order, I renumbered the current bugs starting with 100, so they are all 3 digits. My previous numbering had run over 2000, which I found discouraging to look at every day. Roughly, in the past 4 and ½ years I have fixed 1900 bugs that had the temerity to make it to my task list.

Communications
Mike (Players Manual) has progressed to beginning work editing the ‘big’ section (Section 8, Player Interface), but nothing new from Jim (sound effects), or Dave (music).

I monitored all the threads in the MWIF World in Flames forum daily and uploaded versions 3.00.02, 3.00.03, 3.00.04, 3.00.05, and 3.00.06 for the beta testers. This exceeded my goal of a new version every week.

Patrice continues to keep the map data up-to-date with small changes. This month he got some help from Orm and Alain, which is described below.

Robert continues to do new naval unit writeups every week, while Alain and David maintain a similar pace on the Land Unit writeups.

Michael has done a ton of testing on the sequence of play and, in combination with a half a dozen other beta testers, gifts me with a fresh set of bug reports for every new version I upload (their generosity knows no bounds).

No communications with Harry Rowland or Chris Marinacci.

Hardware and Software Development Tools
I have decided that it is time to buy a new computer. The current one has served me well over the past 3 and a half years, but the salt air in Hawaii plays havoc with metallic elements. By now there are just too many things “not quite right”. I could provide a list of defects, but it would be boring to read. What I have started to do, and will finish in December, is make a detailed list of all the hardware and software in my current system and what I want in the new one.

So far that is one page for hardware and a second for software, but it will probably be 6 pages total once I get everything identified precisely. When I was younger, I would configure a new system off the top of my head and then go buy it. But I’ve become aware these days I have a lot of ‘stuff’ on my system. I do not want to lose any capabilities, plus I have a couple of small items under ‘improvements’. Mostly I will be upgrading my software, with the big changes being to Windows 7, the latest Delphi, and the latest Theme Engine. The portable computer I bought last year runs under Vista, and I will stay that way. This will give me systems for testing both Vista and Windows 7. I expect to be able to test Windows XP under Windows 7 (can anyone confirm that for me)?

I’ll purchase the new system in January and I’ve scheduled a week of misery getting it to perform as well as my current one.

II. Sequence of Play
Beta Testing
I uploaded five new versions for the beta testers this month.

Version 3.00.02 (18 changes) primarily fixed problems with naval movement. The rules for moving naval units is very complex with: limitations on which units can move together, activity limits sometimes imposed, restrictions on moving into some sea areas (e.g., through Gibraltar), dropping off units at sea/while moving through a port, loading units in a port/at sea/while passing through a port, possible naval interception, and resultant naval combat if an interception succeeds. Mixed into all of that are the naval moves that happen when aborting from a naval combat and naval units that are forced to rebase when overrun. The last can occur during the conquest phase and in several places when forming Vichy France. The code to enforce these rules while enabling the players to perform all legal actions is daunting to read, much less write and modify. The player interface design for naval movement has its own little tangle of interactions. Another change with this version was the addition of the optional rule Breaking the Nazi-Soviet Pact. That permits players to break the Nazi-Soviet more readily in 1941.

Version 3.00.03 (10 changes) made “follow up” patches to naval movement. I added a trinary decision after naval interception if there are units still capable of moving. The third choice is for the player to drop off some units in the sea area (where the interception just took place) and have others continue moving. Note that this can happen whether the interception attempt succeeded or not. Also note that the dropped off units can load land units from coastal hexes. Once units have been dropped off, the remaining units need to have their maximum destinations redetermined since they may have dropped off slower units.

Version 3.00.04 (19 changes) was mostly small changes. Some of these were eliminations of old bug reports that I could not reproduce. What happens is that I make corrections but do not necessarily update my task list in all the places where it should be updated. For example, if a beta tester emails me a bug report where the program crashed with a MadExcept error, I use the MadExcept report to locate the problem and fix the code. Linking that correction back to a specific bug report in the MWIF Development Forum isn’t always obvious. I also get a lot of duplicate bug reports (which is a good thing!). However, removing duplicate entries is time consuming and I begrudge the time when I am hot in the throes of getting code to work.

Version 3.00.05 (25 changes) made the changes to invasion hexes which is described in the paragraphs below about the Map, and fixed several problems with placing units in the air reserve pool during setup. This version fixed bugs in the Support Minors phase and in the newish code for the Surrendering phase. Here I was taking advantage of my redesigned task list to fix all the bugs for selected phases of the game. Other improvements were the additions of new help messages in Help Content.txt for the 20 multiple use Unit Dialog forms (e.g., disposition of Vichy units). I guess the most momentous change with this version was the elimination of the Collapsing Vichy France ‘phase’ that was part of CWIF. Collapsing Vichy France is now a digression that occurs during the Axis rail or land movement phase. The advantage of having this as a digression is that the series of events that happen when Vichy collapses can be performed cleanly, and then the game returned to the place in the sequence of play where the collapse was initiated.

Version 3.00.06 (19 changes) was a real hodgepodge of corrections. Rather than tackle a group of related bugs, or one ‘difficult’ bug, I simply investigated all the new bugs reported by the beta testers for the previous two releases. The result was I jumped around in the program hither and yon slathering on patching compound (no programmer should be without it).

Test Script/Plan
Nils has defined 7 sets of optional rules that can be used to encompass all the possible combinations thereof. What this means is that by creating saved games for each of the 7 sets, all the optional rule combinations can be tested. That is a lot easier than having 2 saved games (one with an optional rule ON and another for it OFF) for each of the 81 optional rules.

Game Engine Redesign
One major annoyance this month was the discovery that the sequence of play for the subphases of Land Combat Resolution was incorrect. I had published section 7 of the Players Manual early this year describing these subphases in gruesome detail, but no one had noticed the two serious errors.

What now needs to be done is: (1) modify section 7 text - to me, this is the design specification for the sequence of play, (2) add two new subphases for Converting Shattereds to Retreats and Disorganizing Attacking Units following the Advance After Combat subphase, (3) modify the Land Combat Resolution form to reflect the changes, (4) take new screen shots of that form for the Players Manual, and (5) modify the accompanying text in the Players Manual, (6) modify the text in Help Content.txt, and (7) redo the chapter of the Training Videos on land movement and combat. As someone who has programmed for over 40 years, having the design specifications change after I have written the code and it is thoroughly debugged and documented, instantly infuriates me. I think I’ll go buy more chocolate.

Nothing new on rewriting the supply routines. It’s now 4th in my task queue behind naval combat bugs, the land combat resolution modifications, and coding the redesigned system for routing resources to factories.

Units, Map, and Scenarios
Orm reviewed all the straits hexes on the map for legibility and Patrice changed the data so icons in the hex do not occlude the straits arrows. Alain reviewed the COA data file and located some spurious coastal hexes in the middle of the ocean. Those had no effect on game play and were a consequence of changes to the Scandinavian portion of the map several years ago (but I feel strongly that neatness counts in all software and data).

Patrice searched for obscure coastal hexes which border on two or more sea areas but can only be invaded from one of the sea areas. Because the CWIF map data files did not identify these hexes, the program was permitting invasions from all adjacent sea areas if an invasion were possible from any one of them. I added a new field to a data file and Patrice made the necessary changes. Now the program ‘knows’ that the 2 hexes forming the border between Denmark and Germany are adjacent to both the North Sea and the Baltic sea but can only be invaded from one of them (it’s different for each hex).

The above changes were all a consequence of Michael coming up with a clear way to present the information on which coastal hexes can be invaded from which sea areas. Previously the program displayed adjacent sea areas in a panel of the Main form as the cursor passed over coastal hexes. Now that panel also contains “(no invasion)” following the sea area name if invasion from the sea area into the hex under the cursor is not possible. I am extremely happy with this solution. Unless I am mistaken, new players will no longer have to struggle to figure out the rules for which hexes can be invaded. Not only does moving the cursor make that crystal clear, but after doing so over a bunch of hexes and seeing which ones can be invaded from which sea areas, a new player can figure out the rule himself - without reading any text at all!

Robert Jenkins continues to generate new naval unit writeups and send me periodic updates of the master file. Alain sends me his current master copy of the land unit writeups when he gets new ones from David Hughes. As always, Patrice found a few more names to add to the map.

Optional Rules
I added a new optional rule that makes the Nazi-Soviet pact easier to break in 1941. It is a small change that was easy to code. Simply, the ratio of garrison strength needed to break the pact drops from 4:1 to 3:1 for the second half of 1941. ‘Stuffing’ the border with the confidence that Germany will be unable to break the pact is therefore more difficult for the USSR, and the attempt to do so runs the risk of having the Russian units overwhelmed in the first turn or two of Barbarossa. However, Germany isn’t given free rein to attack whenever it likes, and should the German player neglect his garrison on the border, he can still find himself unable to DOW the USSR until 1942.

Saved Games
Nothing major this month. Changes were required to add the new digression for collapsing Vichy France, but that was transparent to the beta testers. All previously saved games can still be restored.

III. Player Interface
I fixed a bunch of player interface bugs this month. The new ordering of my task list has them towards the top so they drew more of my attention than they typically do. When selecting what to work on, one question I ask is: “Is it easy to do?” Another is: “How long has this defect been festering?” Several of the interface bugs met one or both of those criteria. Oh, and the third question is: “How fatal is this bug?” I refer you to Billy Crystal’s monologue in The Princess Bride on different degrees of dead.

IV. NetPlay
Nothing new.

V. PBEM
Nothing new.

VI. AI Opponent
Peter started work on creating Common Functions for use in the AIO scripts. Most programmers will understand this terminology, and for those of you who don’t, these are fragments of code that are used in multiple LAIO scripts. By pulling them out and placing them in a separate file, they only have to be written (and debugged) once. Then they can be used by any script that needs the same logic. A couple of examples are: (1) determining whether there are any seaborne invasion threats when setting up minor country units, and (2) the same for paradrop threats. These functions are used when setting up the units for almost every minor country - that is, they are used in dozens of places.

I scrimped some free time to work on the LAIO parser this month. At this point I have it close enough to being done that I hope to complete it in the first week of December.

VII. Documentation
Mike asked me to send him my current (unfinished) text on Sections 6 and 8 of the Players Manual, so I guess that is what he is working on now (153 pages in section 8 to date). The former has a lot of holes (PBEM and NetPlay forms). For the latter, (Player Interface), I have caught up to all the code that is finished. That is, if the code is written and working, then its documentation in the Players Manual is also finished. The main open items are for Production Planning (redesign of the system for routing resources to factories), and Breakdown/Reform units (requires implementing the optional rule for Unlimited Breakdown). As I get the code to work, I’ll supplement the documentation in the Players Manual. My goal here is to have zero concerns about documentation when the program nears completion.

VIII. Learning Aids (tutorials, training video, embedded help text)
Nothing new on the last 3 chapters of the training video: naval movement, naval combat, and production. I was about ready to author the chapter on naval movement, but that will have to wait until after I redo the chapter on Land Movement and Combat.

As mentioned above, I added text in the context sensitive Help file for 20 more forms. Context sensitive help is nearly finished, with the exception of the PBEM and NetPlay forms which haven’t been completed. As before, the sequence is: write the code, create the form, take the screenshot, write the documentation in the Players Manual, and then copy that text into the Help Content.txt file. The last step is what appears on the screen when the player clicks on the ubiquitous Help button on the forms - a separate message for each of the 157 forms.

IX. Glitz (historical video, sound effects, music, historical unit write-ups)
No change from last month. The currently active authors for the unit writeups are Robert, Alain, and David. I am waiting on the sound effects from Jim and the music from Dave.

X. Marketing
No change from last month. Andy Johnson has retained the ownership of the MWIF fan site he started to set up before his new job prohibited him from working on it. If anyone is interested, send me an email or Personal Message (PM) - Andy is willing to transfer ownership to someone else.

Remaining Tasks

I Tasks requiring a small number of hours

1. Historical video
Integrate these into the program (randomizing when they are shown).

2. Sound effects
Awaiting Jim’s complete set of sound effects, after which I will integrate them into the program.

3. Music
Awaiting Dave’s complete set of music, after which I will integrate them into the program.

4. Unit writeups
I simply replace old master files with new ones when Rob and Alain send me updates.

5. Players Manual
8 of 12 sections are done.

6. Context sensitive help
I clone the text from the Players Manual once that text has been written.

7. Auxiliary files
These are starter sets for new players so they can jump right into playing the game without having to make a lot of preparatory decisions. Michael just volunteered to work on creating these.

8. Tutorials and training video
The Training Video is 70% done.

9. Player Interface
With the exception of the Standing Order forms for PBEM, I have finished the forms.

10. Optional Rules
For the optional rules, I need to fix bugs and bring them up-to-date with rules changes since 2003.

II Tasks requiring a medium number of hours

11. PBEM
The technical task of sending and receiving emails from within the program hasn’t been coded. Work on the standalone program (running on a third party computer) to generate random numbers hasn’t begun. The large task here concerns the Standing Orders: defining and instantiating internal variables, then displaying them in the forms so players can review and revise them.

12. Sequence of Play
There are still many bugs related to the sequence of play.

III Tasks requiring a large number of hours

13. NetPlay
There isn’t a lot to do directly related to NetPlay, but the underlying performance of the program in generating Game Record Log Entries has to be perfect. That’s because the GRLs are sent to each computer in a networked game to keep them up-to-date with the decisions of all players. I need to instantiate, with actual data, the form used to monitor internet communications while a game is in progress.

14. AI Opponent
I need to finish writing the parser. Which will then leave the task of calibrating the rules’ performance so the AIO plays well.



_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to ewax)
Post #: 1599
RE: When? - 12/2/2009 7:31:48 AM   
Joseignacio


Posts: 2449
Joined: 5/8/2009
From: Madrid, Spain
Status: offline
Thanks for the update!

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 1600
RE: When? - 12/2/2009 10:21:12 AM   
po8crg

 

Posts: 15
Joined: 12/13/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


I have decided that it is time to buy a new computer. The current one has served me well over the past 3 and a half years, but the salt air in Hawaii plays havoc with metallic elements. By now there are just too many things “not quite right”. I could provide a list of defects, but it would be boring to read. What I have started to do, and will finish in December, is make a detailed list of all the hardware and software in my current system and what I want in the new one.

So far that is one page for hardware and a second for software, but it will probably be 6 pages total once I get everything identified precisely. When I was younger, I would configure a new system off the top of my head and then go buy it. But I’ve become aware these days I have a lot of ‘stuff’ on my system. I do not want to lose any capabilities, plus I have a couple of small items under ‘improvements’. Mostly I will be upgrading my software, with the big changes being to Windows 7, the latest Delphi, and the latest Theme Engine. The portable computer I bought last year runs under Vista, and I will stay that way. This will give me systems for testing both Vista and Windows 7. I expect to be able to test Windows XP under Windows 7 (can anyone confirm that for me)?


You can run Windows XP "virtually" inside Windows 7 using XP Mode. To support that, your Windows 7 computer needs to have enough RAM and disk space to hold two full operating systems running simultaneously - I would suggest using 64-bit Windows 7 to support more RAM, as 4GB (the 32-bit limit) is only just enough to run Win 7 (which really needs 2GB) and Win XP (which needs about 3/4 of a GB) at the same time.

XP Mode requires hardware support for virtualization in the processor. I just got stung on that with my new laptop; I bought one with a cheaper processor and it doesn't have Intel's VT extensions on the processor so XP Mode doesn't work. There are equivalent AMD extensions too, though they have a different name.

To use XP Mode, you have to install Windows 7 Professional (or Ultimate, but why waste money?) on the PC; Home Premium, which is fine in all other respects, does not include XP Mode.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 1601
RE: When? - 12/2/2009 11:56:25 AM   
alf16371


Posts: 3
Joined: 11/15/2009
From: Modena, Italy
Status: offline
Thanks for the update, Steve!

(in reply to po8crg)
Post #: 1602
RE: When? - 12/2/2009 3:18:24 PM   
micheljq


Posts: 791
Joined: 3/31/2008
From: Quebec
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

So far that is one page for hardware and a second for software, but it will probably be 6 pages total once I get everything identified precisely. When I was younger, I would configure a new system off the top of my head and then go buy it. But I’ve become aware these days I have a lot of ‘stuff’ on my system. I do not want to lose any capabilities, plus I have a couple of small items under ‘improvements’. Mostly I will be upgrading my software, with the big changes being to Windows 7, the latest Delphi, and the latest Theme Engine. The portable computer I bought last year runs under Vista, and I will stay that way. This will give me systems for testing both Vista and Windows 7. I expect to be able to test Windows XP under Windows 7 (can anyone confirm that for me)?

I’ll purchase the new system in January and I’ve scheduled a week of misery getting it to perform as well as my current one.




It's a pity I do not live in Hawaii, being an hardware/software technician with 10+ years experience, I could have help you configure the new PC, or do it for you. But Quebec is far away from Hawaii.


< Message edited by micheljq -- 12/2/2009 3:32:52 PM >


_____________________________

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 Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 1603
RE: When? - 12/2/2009 3:23:58 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: po8crg

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


I have decided that it is time to buy a new computer. The current one has served me well over the past 3 and a half years, but the salt air in Hawaii plays havoc with metallic elements. By now there are just too many things “not quite right”. I could provide a list of defects, but it would be boring to read. What I have started to do, and will finish in December, is make a detailed list of all the hardware and software in my current system and what I want in the new one.

So far that is one page for hardware and a second for software, but it will probably be 6 pages total once I get everything identified precisely. When I was younger, I would configure a new system off the top of my head and then go buy it. But I’ve become aware these days I have a lot of ‘stuff’ on my system. I do not want to lose any capabilities, plus I have a couple of small items under ‘improvements’. Mostly I will be upgrading my software, with the big changes being to Windows 7, the latest Delphi, and the latest Theme Engine. The portable computer I bought last year runs under Vista, and I will stay that way. This will give me systems for testing both Vista and Windows 7. I expect to be able to test Windows XP under Windows 7 (can anyone confirm that for me)?


You can run Windows XP "virtually" inside Windows 7 using XP Mode. To support that, your Windows 7 computer needs to have enough RAM and disk space to hold two full operating systems running simultaneously - I would suggest using 64-bit Windows 7 to support more RAM, as 4GB (the 32-bit limit) is only just enough to run Win 7 (which really needs 2GB) and Win XP (which needs about 3/4 of a GB) at the same time.

XP Mode requires hardware support for virtualization in the processor. I just got stung on that with my new laptop; I bought one with a cheaper processor and it doesn't have Intel's VT extensions on the processor so XP Mode doesn't work. There are equivalent AMD extensions too, though they have a different name.

To use XP Mode, you have to install Windows 7 Professional (or Ultimate, but why waste money?) on the PC; Home Premium, which is fine in all other respects, does not include XP Mode.

Thank you very much!

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to po8crg)
Post #: 1604
RE: When? - 12/2/2009 3:38:36 PM   
micheljq


Posts: 791
Joined: 3/31/2008
From: Quebec
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Optional Rules
I added a new optional rule that makes the Nazi-Soviet pact easier to break in 1941. It is a small change that was easy to code. Simply, the ratio of garrison strength needed to break the pact drops from 4:1 to 3:1 for the second half of 1941.



Isn't it 2:1 to 3/2:1 in the second half of 1941 in this case of the optional rule?

_____________________________

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 Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 1605
RE: When? - 12/2/2009 5:46:49 PM   
composer99


Posts: 2923
Joined: 6/6/2005
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline
quote:

Game Engine Redesign
One major annoyance this month was the discovery that the sequence of play for the subphases of Land Combat Resolution was incorrect. I had published section 7 of the Players Manual early this year describing these subphases in gruesome detail, but no one had noticed the two serious errors.

What now needs to be done is: (1) modify section 7 text - to me, this is the design specification for the sequence of play, (2) add two new subphases for Converting Shattereds to Retreats and Disorganizing Attacking Units following the Advance After Combat subphase, (3) modify the Land Combat Resolution form to reflect the changes, (4) take new screen shots of that form for the Players Manual, and (5) modify the accompanying text in the Players Manual, (6) modify the text in Help Content.txt, and (7) redo the chapter of the Training Videos on land movement and combat. As someone who has programmed for over 40 years, having the design specifications change after I have written the code and it is thoroughly debugged and documented, instantly infuriates me. I think I’ll go buy more chocolate.


Ouch.

_____________________________

~ Composer99

(in reply to micheljq)
Post #: 1606
RE: When? - 12/2/2009 6:07:17 PM   
Steely Glint


Posts: 580
Joined: 9/23/2003
Status: offline
And the release date estimate remains sometime in 2010?

_____________________________

“It was a war of snap judgments and binary results—shoot or don’t, live or die.“

Wargamer since 1967. Matrix customer since 2003.

(in reply to composer99)
Post #: 1607
RE: When? - 12/2/2009 7:23:12 PM   
paulderynck


Posts: 8201
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: micheljq


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Optional Rules
I added a new optional rule that makes the Nazi-Soviet pact easier to break in 1941. It is a small change that was easy to code. Simply, the ratio of garrison strength needed to break the pact drops from 4:1 to 3:1 for the second half of 1941.



Isn't it 2:1 to 3/2:1 in the second half of 1941 in this case of the optional rule?

IMO 4:1 and 3:1 are simplifications which could confuse someone reading RAW or RAC. It is better to say you always need a 2:1 ratio to break a pact and that in the second half of 41 the USSR garrison value is multiplied by 0.75. This is because each sides entry markers are not affected by the annual multipliers, but when added to their garrison value cannot more than double it. After all that, you see if there's a 2:1 ratio.

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to micheljq)
Post #: 1608
RE: When? - 12/2/2009 7:32:22 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck


quote:

ORIGINAL: micheljq


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Optional Rules
I added a new optional rule that makes the Nazi-Soviet pact easier to break in 1941. It is a small change that was easy to code. Simply, the ratio of garrison strength needed to break the pact drops from 4:1 to 3:1 for the second half of 1941.



Isn't it 2:1 to 3/2:1 in the second half of 1941 in this case of the optional rule?

IMO 4:1 and 3:1 are simplifications which could confuse someone reading RAW or RAC. It is better to say you always need a 2:1 ratio to break a pact and that in the second half of 41 the USSR garrison value is multiplied by 0.75. This is because each sides entry markers are not affected by the annual multipliers, but when added to their garrison value cannot more than double it. After all that, you see if there's a 2:1 ratio.

I wasn't trying to write the rule nor was I trying to describe it with overwhelming precision. I went to that effort in the Players Manual et al, but not here.

What I wrote in the status report is correct.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 1609
RE: When? - 12/2/2009 8:33:51 PM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: alf16371

Thanks for the update, Steve!

Would you like a MWiF Folgore ?




Attachment (1)

(in reply to alf16371)
Post #: 1610
RE: When? - 12/2/2009 11:02:25 PM   
bo

 

Posts: 4176
Joined: 5/1/2009
Status: offline
This is the new nice me[had a lobotomy last week] being nasty does not work, how about I send Steve two Tony Lukes pork sandwiches will that help to speed things up?

Bo

(in reply to alexvand)
Post #: 1611
RE: When? - 12/3/2009 8:23:48 AM   
Caquineur


Posts: 96
Joined: 4/21/2009
From: Aix en Provence, France, Europe
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
December 1, 2009 Status Report for Matrix Games’ MWIF Forum
IX. Glitz (historical video, sound effects, music, historical unit write-ups)
...The currently active authors for the unit writeups are Robert, Alain, and David.

In fact, the currently active authors for the unit writeups are Robert, Eric (grisouille), and David. And Adam should be active again very soon, and maybe others too.

I'm not an author myself, just sort of a biological grammar/spelling non-automatic corrector (and the analogy with software doesn't stop here : there are bugs too in the current version )

Alain

PS : thanks for the update

EDIT : spelling

< Message edited by Caquineur -- 12/3/2009 8:24:37 AM >

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 1612
RE: When? - 12/3/2009 1:31:27 PM   
yvesp


Posts: 2083
Joined: 9/12/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Steely Glint

And the release date estimate remains sometime in 2010?


Well... I still hope so.
But I'd not expect anything sooner than July, and that's optimistic.

Remember that little significant progress has been made (functionaly speaking that is) since
September, and that none is forthcoming in December. (did I miss something in the reports ?)

Sorry Steve ; I'm not laying stones in your garden, just laying down facts. I really respect
your work and commitment and support you fully, having a good insight at the intricacies
that lay behind a ruleset as big as that of WiF... especially when one adds optional rules.
The fact that you take your time to crush bugs shows me that you're a doing a good and serious job.


That leaves all the AI (which, as of now, is mostly only written on paper), and that's not the easiest part.
July is optimistic, because that leaves only 5 months to complete the AI (count one month to launch
the commercialization), and the AI for such a game will be tremendously difficult to tweak in order
to get an acceptable opponent.

For exemple, I have in my mind a difficult AI choice (there are a lot many more of course) :

End of turn, time to rebase. Do you rebase that convoy in the mediterranean ?

  • pro : it's in danger and cannot be protected in the first impulse of the next turn.
  • pro : you have no replacement ready if it goes down and cannot stay at sea unprotected because it is crucial at this very moment in your supply chain.
  • con : you lose that resource it was transporting ; production reduced (or not... maybe that's a superflous resource)
  • con : your ground/air forces in Malta and further down around the globe will be out of supply in the next first impulse at least. As a consequence, those air units won't be able to fly to try and intercept an invasion or provide ground support, and the land forces may be (depending on a possible ground strike) unable to defend themselves seriously.
  • con : you'll have to do either a combined or a naval as the first impulse next turn, unless you agree to let the previous situation (unsupplied Malta and other units)
  • con : if you don't have the initiative next turn, you're vulnerable to an airborne invasion of Malta (or possibly other places around the globe)
  • question: what is your chance of getting the first impulse ?
  • question: what is the chance that your convoy might be sunk if the opponent moves against it ?
  • question: what is the chance that your ground unit will be turned down by a ground strike ?
  • question: what is the likely wheather next turn ? It affects both previous answers.
  • question: what is the real risk on Malta (assess opponent airborne and amphibious forces)
  • question: how likely is it that the opponent will divert his attention to this theater, knowing he is seriously involved in other places. The answer is trickier than is seems, because providing such a "diversion" may give a lifesaving relief on another part of the front (the opponent may have to do a combined to ensure his capture of Malta.)
  • question: can Malta be kept on the long run or will it be too costly ?
  • question: how does losing Malta affect the strategic plan ?


OK... You see the picture. Moving a single counter can have daunting ramifications... It's worst than chess because you have more counters, more "squares", and randomness in addition. Even if the AI doesn't go down the whole tree of possibilities, it will still have to make serious decisions on such situations, lest it leaves half of it's units unsupplied (depending on which options are used of course!).

Which is why I believe that 5 months in the making will be the bare minimum.
I'd like to know Steve's estimation at this time though.


Edit: I know that some purists around will jump on their seats, but I believe it will be necessary for the AI to cheat somewhat, at least in the first release, and later (after the AI hopefully performs well) to provide for a stronger opponent. I think such cheats should be known (I don't like when the bonus are unknown) and switchable, or even configurable. Such cheats could come in terms of:

  • Knowledge of the unknown (in the previous exemple, the AI could know the forecasted wheather or the normal impulse order ; it could still get it wrong in case of rerolls ; it could then decide not to rebase because it knows the weather will be storm ; too bad if there is a reroll.) This might also include to some degree the normal results of combats, so that it could have a chance of not attacking if the result would turn ugly.
  • Slight combat advantage (like a probability of getting +1 on combat die rolls)
  • Slight production advantage (maybe up to 20%)


Yves


< Message edited by yvesp -- 12/3/2009 3:03:02 PM >

(in reply to Steely Glint)
Post #: 1613
RE: When? - 12/3/2009 3:43:46 PM   
wfzimmerman


Posts: 660
Joined: 10/22/2003
Status: offline
Detail-lovers will argue with this, but I am a great fan of WAGs based on actual historicals. If it took 4.5 years to fix 1900 bugs, then that's roughly 420 bugs fixed/year, considered against the context of all the other things that Steve has had to do. Even though Steve is currently focused on bug fixes, if you look at the framework of the next year, he still has a lot of "context" of other things to do, so maybe 400 bugs/year is not so unrealistic for 2010. How many bugs are left?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


I spent several days revising my master task list. Besides redesigning how information is stored, I also grouped similar bug reports together. One major improvement is that the bugs are now listed in the order of the sequence of play. This lets me review, say, all the bugs reported concerning the Declaration of War phase, which has 9 subphases. Besides changing the order, I renumbered the current bugs starting with 100, so they are all 3 digits. My previous numbering had run over 2000, which I found discouraging to look at every day. Roughly, in the past 4 and ½ years I have fixed 1900 bugs that had the temerity to make it to my task list.
[/quote/

< Message edited by wfzimmerman -- 12/3/2009 3:53:48 PM >

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 1614
RE: When? - 12/3/2009 4:07:04 PM   
Zorachus99


Posts: 1066
Joined: 9/15/2000
From: Palo Alto, CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: po8crg

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


I have decided that it is time to buy a new computer. The current one has served me well over the past 3 and a half years, but the salt air in Hawaii plays havoc with metallic elements. By now there are just too many things “not quite right”. I could provide a list of defects, but it would be boring to read. What I have started to do, and will finish in December, is make a detailed list of all the hardware and software in my current system and what I want in the new one.

So far that is one page for hardware and a second for software, but it will probably be 6 pages total once I get everything identified precisely. When I was younger, I would configure a new system off the top of my head and then go buy it. But I’ve become aware these days I have a lot of ‘stuff’ on my system. I do not want to lose any capabilities, plus I have a couple of small items under ‘improvements’. Mostly I will be upgrading my software, with the big changes being to Windows 7, the latest Delphi, and the latest Theme Engine. The portable computer I bought last year runs under Vista, and I will stay that way. This will give me systems for testing both Vista and Windows 7. I expect to be able to test Windows XP under Windows 7 (can anyone confirm that for me)?


You can run Windows XP "virtually" inside Windows 7 using XP Mode. To support that, your Windows 7 computer needs to have enough RAM and disk space to hold two full operating systems running simultaneously - I would suggest using 64-bit Windows 7 to support more RAM, as 4GB (the 32-bit limit) is only just enough to run Win 7 (which really needs 2GB) and Win XP (which needs about 3/4 of a GB) at the same time.

XP Mode requires hardware support for virtualization in the processor. I just got stung on that with my new laptop; I bought one with a cheaper processor and it doesn't have Intel's VT extensions on the processor so XP Mode doesn't work. There are equivalent AMD extensions too, though they have a different name.

To use XP Mode, you have to install Windows 7 Professional (or Ultimate, but why waste money?) on the PC; Home Premium, which is fine in all other respects, does not include XP Mode.

Thank you very much!


Almost all AMD processors support virtualization. Intel has a HCL on their and microsoft's site for VT. About half of Intel's processors do not support virtualization.

Additonally the only some versions of windows 7 have virtualization for free with the OS.

CPU List
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86_virtualization

OS List
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/virtual-pc/support/requirements.aspx



_____________________________

Most men can survive adversity, the true test of a man's character is power. -Abraham Lincoln

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 1615
RE: When? - 12/3/2009 6:25:45 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Caquineur

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
December 1, 2009 Status Report for Matrix Games’ MWIF Forum
IX. Glitz (historical video, sound effects, music, historical unit write-ups)
...The currently active authors for the unit writeups are Robert, Alain, and David.

In fact, the currently active authors for the unit writeups are Robert, Eric (grisouille), and David. And Adam should be active again very soon, and maybe others too.

I'm not an author myself, just sort of a biological grammar/spelling non-automatic corrector (and the analogy with software doesn't stop here : there are bugs too in the current version )

Alain

PS : thanks for the update

EDIT : spelling

Sorry about that. One of the ways I maintain my happy disposition is through blissful ignorance.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Caquineur)
Post #: 1616
RE: When? - 12/3/2009 7:04:12 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wfzimmerman

Detail-lovers will argue with this, but I am a great fan of WAGs based on actual historicals. If it took 4.5 years to fix 1900 bugs, then that's roughly 420 bugs fixed/year, considered against the context of all the other things that Steve has had to do. Even though Steve is currently focused on bug fixes, if you look at the framework of the next year, he still has a lot of "context" of other things to do, so maybe 400 bugs/year is not so unrealistic for 2010. How many bugs are left?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


I spent several days revising my master task list. Besides redesigning how information is stored, I also grouped similar bug reports together. One major improvement is that the bugs are now listed in the order of the sequence of play. This lets me review, say, all the bugs reported concerning the Declaration of War phase, which has 9 subphases. Besides changing the order, I renumbered the current bugs starting with 100, so they are all 3 digits. My previous numbering had run over 2000, which I found discouraging to look at every day. Roughly, in the past 4 and ½ years I have fixed 1900 bugs that had the temerity to make it to my task list.


I gave some thought this morning, before getting out of bed, as to what I have done over the last 4 years, 5 months. Here a very rough breakdown:

~1 year getting the map and unit data correct and writing the graphics to display them on the screen.

~1 year redesigning the program structure to support NetPlay, PBEM, and AI Opponent. This includes redesigning the sequence of play so each phase of the game has its own module (~60), explicitly coding the subphases (~80) for the major phases in the sequence of play, and the addition of digressions (~10) to handle game events that cause the sequence of play to 'freeze' (e.g., rebasing overrun naval units, aborting units from air combat). Also under this very large umbrella is modifying the screen layout to better use multiple monitors.

~1 year redesigning the forms and creating new forms. The number of forms, compared to CWIF, has increased 50% to over 150, and every form has received extensive changes and frequent improvements based on feedback from the beta testers.

~1 year writing text etc. to help new players learn how to play MWIF and to help all players play the game both correctly and knowledgably. This includes:
(1) A rewritten Rules and Written (RAW) as Rules as Coded (RAC), which is 150+ pages as a PDF. Many clarifications to rules were necessary to finish this document, which includes all the 'deviations' where MWIF does not follow WIF FE precisely.
(2) Picture and text tutorials which are 125 pages of screen shots with accompanying explanatory text. These are intended for players to learn by 'reading'.
(3) Interactive tutorials (designed but not implemented yet), where players can move the mouse, click on items, and use the keyboard to learn by "seeing what happens".
(4) Training Videoes in 12 chapters (8 are finished) which let the player learn by "watching and listening". When done, these will run to over 6 hours.
(5) A Players Manual which covers not only the basics of loading the program and starting a new game, but also includes 40 pages describing the sequence of play in terse prose, 35 pages of advice from a half a dozen players with over 100 years of WIF playing experience, and 150 pages of descriptions of the forms (with screen shots) which detail the purpose of the form, how it relates to the rules, and how to use it.
(6) Context sensitive help for each of the 150+ forms.

~6 months on NetPlay, PBEM, and the AI Opponent.

It is the last item that I have still have left to finish. The 4 other items are done except for debugging and where noted above - accomplishing these tasks was non-trivial (I received tons of help from numerous volunteers, to whom I am deeply indebted).
---
Oh, well, back to work.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to wfzimmerman)
Post #: 1617
RE: When? - 12/3/2009 8:36:12 PM   
WIF_Killzone

 

Posts: 277
Joined: 4/30/2009
Status: offline
Sorry to hear about the game engine redesign issue Steve, bummer.

It would be nice to have to someone to blame..for the firing squad. Hmm, is that us??

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 1618
RE: When? - 12/3/2009 9:35:27 PM   
wfzimmerman


Posts: 660
Joined: 10/22/2003
Status: offline
So if you assume that task #2 (redesign)& task #3 (forms) accounted for the majority of the 1900 bugs, it would be reasonable to assume that task #5 (NetPlay, PBEM, AI) will generate, say, 500 or more bugs. A daunting task! A few years ago I posted about what we did at LexisNexis to project release dates -- a chart with # of open bugs v. # of closed. Eventually, the # of open bugs will start to approach an asymptote (not 0), and the closure rate will be predictable enough to provide a reliable release date.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


I gave some thought this morning, before getting out of bed, as to what I have done over the last 4 years, 5 months. Here a very rough breakdown:

~1 year getting the map and unit data correct and writing the graphics to display them on the screen.

~1 year redesigning the program structure to support NetPlay, PBEM, and AI Opponent. This includes redesigning the sequence of play so each phase of the game has its own module (~60), explicitly coding the subphases (~80) for the major phases in the sequence of play, and the addition of digressions (~10) to handle game events that cause the sequence of play to 'freeze' (e.g., rebasing overrun naval units, aborting units from air combat). Also under this very large umbrella is modifying the screen layout to better use multiple monitors.

~1 year redesigning the forms and creating new forms. The number of forms, compared to CWIF, has increased 50% to over 150, and every form has received extensive changes and frequent improvements based on feedback from the beta testers.

~1 year writing text etc. to help new players learn how to play MWIF and to help all players play the game both correctly and knowledgably. This includes:
(1) A rewritten Rules and Written (RAW) as Rules as Coded (RAC), which is 150+ pages as a PDF. Many clarifications to rules were necessary to finish this document, which includes all the 'deviations' where MWIF does not follow WIF FE precisely.
(2) Picture and text tutorials which are 125 pages of screen shots with accompanying explanatory text. These are intended for players to learn by 'reading'.
(3) Interactive tutorials (designed but not implemented yet), where players can move the mouse, click on items, and use the keyboard to learn by "seeing what happens".
(4) Training Videoes in 12 chapters (8 are finished) which let the player learn by "watching and listening". When done, these will run to over 6 hours.
(5) A Players Manual which covers not only the basics of loading the program and starting a new game, but also includes 40 pages describing the sequence of play in terse prose, 35 pages of advice from a half a dozen players with over 100 years of WIF playing experience, and 150 pages of descriptions of the forms (with screen shots) which detail the purpose of the form, how it relates to the rules, and how to use it.
(6) Context sensitive help for each of the 150+ forms.

~6 months on NetPlay, PBEM, and the AI Opponent.

It is the last item that I have still have left to finish. The 4 other items are done except for debugging and where noted above - accomplishing these tasks was non-trivial (I received tons of help from numerous volunteers, to whom I am deeply indebted).
---
Oh, well, back to work.


_____________________________


(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 1619
RE: When? - 12/4/2009 2:46:38 AM   
michaelbaldur


Posts: 4774
Joined: 4/6/2007
From: denmark
Status: offline

as a beta tester.

I don´t worry about the bug in the games. there are more and more parts of the game totally bug free.

steve is doing a superhuman work on the bugs




_____________________________

the wif rulebook is my bible

I work hard, not smart.

beta tester and Mwif expert

if you have questions or issues with the game, just contact me on Michaelbaldur1@gmail.com

(in reply to wfzimmerman)
Post #: 1620
Page:   <<   < prev  52 53 [54] 55 56   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> RE: When? Page: <<   < prev  52 53 [54] 55 56   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

1.313