Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Don't forget the "etc."

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> Don't forget the "etc." Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Don't forget the "etc." - 11/11/2013 11:48:33 PM   
icitrom_y

 

Posts: 25
Joined: 10/20/2013
Status: offline
There are several threads now discussing the incompleteness of MWiF. NetPlay is priority A1 to be fixed. Then it is promised to be extended to 6 players. The lack of AI is a big topic. Shannon OKeats says that AI is what really interests him. All the power to him and wishes for success. The missing PBEM is another hot-button issue and this element, from what I read on several forums, is the big deal-breaker for WiF grognards.

Every time these things are mentioned, it is described as, "NetPlay, AI, PBEM," and "etc." Be advised that 24 of the 81 optional rules (which maps just about to ADG-WiF's optional rules set) are as yet not implemented and greyed out.

I'm posting this not to be nasty, rather to highlight this, make the MWiF community aware, and to keep the pressure on, so-to-speak. By pressure, I don't mean speed. Reading the developers' comments, they flat-out say that not all options will be implemented. The criterion used will be how complex it is to insert it into the current code base, which is the worst reason I can think of.

Seeing how Mr. Okeats seems overwhelmed, that he inherited someone else's problem (a very important point, in my opinion), and that there are several major subsystems still to implement, it seems like making MWiF, WiF is not at all a priority.

Officially, every ADG module is included in MWiF with the exception of Factories in Flames (FiF, 2008 annual). It has been posted here that FiF is out of the question as it is too complex to code at this point. And, with a third of the optional rules that are in ADG-WiF (Rules as Written (RAW 7)) either not as yet implemented or will never be implemented, MWiF has already significantly diverged from ADG-WiF. That I need to use the acronym ADG-WiF says something to me.

Yes, some people have only just heard of World in Flames. So, to them, Matrix-WiF is chocolate to ADG-WiF's vanilla. But, all of you who have been saying that they've been waiting a decade or more, have you been waiting for a computerized version of WiF, or a new variant called Matrix-WiF?!

FiF is out. ADG is coming out with RAW 8 this coming year, which I am told will change/improve things in WiF. Because of the project management history of this product, it seems to me that the developers are relieved to get their variant out at all, never mind working to parallel ADG-WiF with patches and new paid releases.

So, now there is this offshoot called Matrix-WiF--take it or leave is what I'm reading on these forums. It will only continue to angle away from ADG-WiF, the designers of the game and the standard outside this computer game, because there needs to be so much effort expended on other areas of the product that have not been completed.

I'm especially disappointed, because when I was hearing about patches and add-on modules to this game, I was thinking about stuff like "Days of Decision," in order to at least complete the WiF game. I now sense that I can forget about that. Upcoming seems to be a paid add-on module for AI (PBEM as well?). And, nowhere in this post have I yet mentioned the time and energy necessary for bugs, which I'm told is the least of my problems, so essentially, shut-up.


I get it. Everything is on Shannon's head. Because of the mess he inherited, I'll bet you a dollar the code is very procedural, with event functions as long as my arm. He's scared to touch anything because who knows what will break down. As such, any functionality, such as Factories in Flames or any other optional rule, which is aspect-oriented (touches many points all throughout the programming), nobody wants to now deal with.

Nobody wants to now deal with it because there is NetPlay to fix, NetPlay to extend, PBEM to deliver, AI, AI, AI, bugs to fix, and user-interface improvements and polishing, and game-play stuff like sound effects, dot, dot, dot. And, OKeats is all alone in this. So, woe betide anyone who mentions anything as ludicrous as Days of Decision.


I get it. In the meanwhile the grognard dollars want PBEM, OKeats wants to switch to programming the AI, many people want it, and there are more dollars to be had/lost on these major areas of functionality.

In all of this I'm hoping that nobody forgets to make Matrix-WiF, WiF. If Harry Rowland reads this and says, "hey, WTF," good. I'm hoping that a large population of MWiF owners and potential owners will also say, "hey, WTF."


I'd like to see OKeats, Slitherine, Matrix, and Harry Rowland makes lots of money. I'd like to see those who want the AI, PBEM and NetPlay satisfied. I'd like to have MWiF be WiF. 24 out of 81 optional rules non-functional is not it.

If you feel I'm throwing a spoke in MWiF wheels, I'm not the one who released it like this nor managed the project like this. And, I would point out for all the threads advertising MWiF, that a third of the optional rules are not implemented is conspicuously unmentioned to the current potential buyer (i.e. not buried in some post from a year or 5 years ago).

For $200 plus whatever future add-ons will cost to include what should have been in the box already, I don't think I'm in the wrong.

Priority A2 -- finish WiF itself.

As a sort of postscript, all of the above is within the context of this computer wargame vs. my/people's $200-$300. I'm certain sure that Shannon, the people at Matrix and Slitherine, and we all, have much more important real-world real-life issues and we're all good parents.
.
Post #: 1
RE: Don't forget the "etc." - 11/12/2013 12:18:17 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline 		Changing the code to support changes to the rules is non-trivial. It takes less than a minute to write a sentence that provides a new rule to the board game. Then it is up the to players to figure out how that change affects everything else.

There were ~400 corrections and clarifications answered by Harry that are included in MWIF. But I stopped adding new 'features' in 2008. My resolve wasn't perfect so a few more changes post 2008 are in MWIF.

If you want something annoying, try writing code, making it work, having the beta testers beat on it until its bug free, and then be told that the rule has changed and all the code has to be scrapped or heavily modified. After going through that ritual for 4 years I drew a line.

Players can come up with a wish list in a half hour that would take a year to code. Think about that. Think about that some more. Think about the new bugs that are created when new features are added. And the debugging involved. And all the players who could care less about one feature/optional rule more. Or who only want 'their' optional rule added. When you can list all 54 optional rules off the top of your head, and explain how they all work,and how they interact with all the other rules, I'll let you sit down and read through the 400,000 lines of code so you can point out to me how easy it will be to add all the other things on your wish list.

Sorry for being peevish. But really!

< Message edited by Shannon V. OKeets -- 11/12/2013 1:20:02 AM >

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to icitrom_y)
Post #: 2
RE: Don't forget the "etc." - 11/12/2013 12:30:02 AM   
jomni


Posts: 2827
Joined: 11/19/2007
Status: offline 		This is the touble with converting board games with rules that only the human mind can grasp. I am amazed at how they even pulled off coding the base WiF. Good job!

< Message edited by jomni -- 11/12/2013 1:30:29 AM >

_____________________________

My Blog
Random Wargame Name Generator

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 3
RE: Don't forget the "etc." - 11/12/2013 12:36:36 AM   
Texashawk

 

Posts: 208
Joined: 12/9/2006
Status: offline 		This is a late entrant for the 2013 Matrix Forums 'Lowest Ratio of Words to Sense' post award. Nice!

_____________________________

Lifetime "You Magnificent Bastard!" callouts: 5
Lifetime slaps across the face by a female: 2
Lifetime games that hold my attention longer than a month: 3

(in reply to jomni)
Post #: 4
RE: Don't forget the "etc." - 11/12/2013 12:58:05 AM   
WYBaugh

 

Posts: 155
Joined: 7/5/2004
Status: offline 		Steve,

I know nothing about WiF but am a programmer so I'm curious as to how you handled the rules. Were you able to create a generic class or object or data table to allow the rules to be processed or did you have to effectively hard code all of the differing rules?

Impressed with the screenshots and your effort that you have put into your game. I'm very tempted to buy just to support you but I know I'll probably never be able to learn the thing!

What did you write MMWiF in?

Bill

(in reply to Texashawk)
Post #: 5
RE: Don't forget the "etc." - 11/12/2013 1:28:46 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline 		Delphi 2010.

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

Like most simulations, you start with the basic elements of the simulation:
the domain space (map)
the actors (units)
the time scale
the sequence of events

Each of those is an Object. Objects can have subtypes (e.g., land units), be in tables (e.g., all units in the game), and the usual stuff for Objects: data fields and methods.

For the sequence of play I defined a base object of a Phase (there are 60 in MWIF), and similarly base objects for subphases, sub-subphases, and digressions (from the sequence of play). All told there are 152 elements to the sequence of play.

The is one Object for the Game-in-Progress, which contains data fields for all the phases et al.

Whenever possible the rules are encoded as methods within an object. I guess that's true for most of the rules. For instance, there is an Object for a group of units called TUnitStack, and a specialized subtype for TMovingStack. TMovingStack has a few methods that encode a lot of the rules: CanMoveTo(hex), CanSetup(hex), and MoveTo(hex). The first ad last of those routines contain a case statement for the phase (et al) of the game within which there is branching logic for unit types. Those routines are 3900, 850, and 4050 lines of code respectively. They call a lot of methods for the other objects that need to be referenced to implement the rules (e.g., terrain, weather, controlling major power, etc.).

When I last compiled the program the compiler reported there were 423,000 lines of code.

I could write a lot about this. But I need to do other stuff right now.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to WYBaugh)
Post #: 6
RE: Don't forget the "etc." - 11/12/2013 1:32:47 AM   
WYBaugh

 

Posts: 155
Joined: 7/5/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Delphi 2010.

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

Like most simulations, you start with the basic elements of the simulation:
the domain space (map)
the actors (units)
the time scale
the sequence of events

Each of those is an Object. Objects can have subtypes (e.g., land units), be in tables (e.g., all units in the game), and the usual stuff for Objects: data fields and methods.

For the sequence of play I defined a base object of a Phase (there are 60 in MWIF), and similarly base objects for subphases, sub-subphases, and digressions (from the sequence of play). All told there are 152 elements to the sequence of play.

The is one Object for the Game-in-Progress, which contains data fields for all the phases et al.

Whenever possible the rules are encoded as methods within an object. I guess that's true for most of the rules. For instance, there is an Object for a group of units called TUnitStack, and a specialized subtype for TMovingStack. TMovingStack has a few methods that encode a lot of the rules: CanMoveTo(hex), CanSetup(hex), and MoveTo(hex). The first ad last of those routines contain a case statement for the phase (et al) of the game within which there is branching logic for unit types. Those routines are 3900, 850, and 4050 lines of code respectively. They call a lot of methods for the other objects that need to be referenced to implement the rules (e.g., terrain, weather, controlling major power, etc.).

When I last compiled the program the compiler reported there were 423,000 lines of code.

I could write a lot about this. But I need to do other stuff right now.


Would love to talk to you about it but understand that you are way busy.

Thank you for the reply and continued good luck with the game!

Bill

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 7
RE: Don't forget the "etc." - 11/12/2013 2:16:29 AM   
FroBodine


Posts: 872
Joined: 5/5/2007
From: Brentwood, California (not the OJ one)
Status: offline 		I am not taking sides at all in this volatile thread. I am just curious if there are plans to add any more of the optional rules that the OP mentioned are missing. Or is this all the game will get? Just curious.

(in reply to WYBaugh)
Post #: 8
RE: Don't forget the "etc." - 11/12/2013 2:18:20 AM   
jeffk3510


Posts: 4132
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Kansas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Changing the code to support changes to the rules is non-trivial. It takes less than a minute to write a sentence that provides a new rule to the board game. Then it is up the to players to figure out how that change affects everything else.

There were ~400 corrections and clarifications answered by Harry that are included in MWIF. But I stopped adding new 'features' in 2008. My resolve wasn't perfect so a few more changes post 2008 are in MWIF.

If you want something annoying, try writing code, making it work, having the beta testers beat on it until its bug free, and then be told that the rule has changed and all the code has to be scrapped or heavily modified. After going through that ritual for 4 years I drew a line.

Players can come up with a wish list in a half hour that would take a year to code. Think about that. Think about that some more. Think about the new bugs that are created when new features are added. And the debugging involved. And all the players who could care less about one feature/optional rule more. Or who only want 'their' optional rule added. When you can list all 54 optional rules off the top of your head, and explain how they all work,and how they interact with all the other rules, I'll let you sit down and read through the 400,000 lines of code so you can point out to me how easy it will be to add all the other things on your wish list.

Sorry for being peevish. But really!


WiTP AE has come a LONG way from the day it was released, and it a masterpiece IMO.

I see the same thing happening with WiF with a strong community, and committed folks within that community.

Keep up the good work, but most importantly, take care of yourself as well.

_____________________________

Life is tough. The sooner you realize that, the easier it will be.

Currently chasing three kids around the Midwest.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 9
RE: Don't forget the "etc." - 11/12/2013 2:22:58 AM   
jomni


Posts: 2827
Joined: 11/19/2007
Status: offline 		At least with WiF there's no talk about the stats and combat results being unrealistic.

_____________________________

My Blog
Random Wargame Name Generator

(in reply to jeffk3510)
Post #: 10
RE: Don't forget the "etc." - 11/12/2013 2:35:25 AM   
jeffk3510


Posts: 4132
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Kansas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jomni

At least with WiF there's no talk about the stats and combat results being unrealistic.


It's borked I tell you! Borked!

_____________________________

Life is tough. The sooner you realize that, the easier it will be.

Currently chasing three kids around the Midwest.

(in reply to jomni)
Post #: 11
RE: Don't forget the "etc." - 11/12/2013 2:39:29 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

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

ORIGINAL: jglazier

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


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

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to FroBodine)
Post #: 12
RE: Don't forget the "etc." - 11/12/2013 2:47:06 AM   
Neilster


Posts: 2890
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jglazier

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


In short, yes, but probably not all of them.

Cheers, Neilster

(in reply to FroBodine)
Post #: 13
RE: Don't forget the "etc." - 11/12/2013 3:04:34 AM   
FroBodine


Posts: 872
Joined: 5/5/2007
From: Brentwood, California (not the OJ one)
Status: offline 		Well, I misread the original posting. I thought he said only 24 out of 81 were currently implemented. In fact, only 24 are missing.

That's not bad at all in my book! I don't know what he's complaining about.

Game on!

(in reply to Neilster)
Post #: 14
RE: Don't forget the "etc." - 11/12/2013 3:51:54 AM   
DSWargamer

 

Posts: 283
Joined: 8/25/2010
Status: offline 		If someone were to offer me a brand new set of every last portion of the board game, well it would still be the board game, and it would still be where the portions I do have currently sit. In a storage bin with a few other damned good board games, that I simply have no method of playing without taking a carving knife to all my other hobbies currently present.

It would be nice if WiF the board game, and WiF the computer program were able to remain 100% identical. It would be nice if I lived in a million dollar home and could afford a massive playing room that could house the entire game casually set up on a deluxe table that was locked and proof against the cat getting in.

Before this month, I had written off the game as being a part of my past. I have even tried to sell the board game in the past for peanuts.

I'm glad the computer version arrived. If it turns out to be the same as what happened to Advanced Third Reich, which insisted on evolving into a global game retailing for about 250 bucks the last time I looked, so be it. The world won't stop spinning because the two are not identical. I still prefer to play A3R and don't have the other.

_____________________________

I have too many too complicated wargames, and not enough sufficiently interested non wargamer friends.

(in reply to FroBodine)
Post #: 15
RE: Don't forget the "etc." - 11/12/2013 3:59:28 AM   
jomni


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

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: jglazier

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


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


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

_____________________________

My Blog
Random Wargame Name Generator

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 16
RE: Don't forget the "etc." - 11/12/2013 4:39:57 AM   
icitrom_y

 

Posts: 25
Joined: 10/20/2013
Status: offline 		Steve and the resident apologists;

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

(in reply to FroBodine)
Post #: 17
RE: Don't forget the "etc." - 11/12/2013 4:59:58 AM   
jomni


Posts: 2827
Joined: 11/19/2007
Status: offline 		@icitrom
So can you make a better code of WiF with 100% synchronization with the living WiF rules? Can you do a better job than the developer?

_____________________________

My Blog
Random Wargame Name Generator

(in reply to icitrom_y)
Post #: 18
RE: Don't forget the "etc." - 11/12/2013 5:01:56 AM   
76mm


Posts: 4688
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Washington, DC
Status: offline 		Jeez cut Steve some slack. I don't know much about programming but I suspect that coding these rules is no mean feat of programming. Want more features? Buy the game and support the devs.

(in reply to icitrom_y)
Post #: 19
RE: Don't forget the "etc." - 11/12/2013 5:20:47 AM   
Neilster


Posts: 2890
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Status: offline 		I, for one, don't care if MWiF isn't an incredibly faithful recreation of the very latest rule-set. I haven't really played WiF since Version 5, so I would have been happy if there was just a computer version of that.

This is actually an incredibly good computerised representation of World in Flames. If it's not for you icitrom_y, then cool. It's your money and your choice. I don't see a lot of other options for playing World in Flames on a computer where the rules-checking, calculations and book-keeping are done for you, and that promises an AI down the road. Do you realise that Steve took on a dead project and has worked for free for over eight years to make it happen, despite several incredibly serious health problems?

You come off as arrogant, petty and unlikeable. Telling Steve to "leave the development drama to yourself", when he was directly asked about it, is just one example. I'm a software developer and I'm really glad I'll never work with or for you.

Neilster

(in reply to jomni)
Post #: 20
RE: Don't forget the "etc." - 11/12/2013 5:56:05 AM   
paulderynck


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

ORIGINAL: icitrom_y

Officially, every ADG module is included in MWiF with the exception of Factories in Flames (FiF, 2008 annual). It has been posted here that FiF is out of the question as it is too complex to code at this point. And, with a third of the optional rules that are in ADG-WiF (Rules as Written (RAW 7)) either not as yet implemented or will never be implemented, MWiF has already significantly diverged from ADG-WiF. That I need to use the acronym ADG-WiF says something to me.



It stopped being identical to WiF (the recognized acronym for the boardgame - no need to invent others) when the decision was made to go European scale for the entire playing surface. People all over the world play the game but use vastly differing sets and quantities of optional rules. Which of those games are already significantly diverged from WiF? MWiF allows folks to play a great many significantly diverged games of WiF.


_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to icitrom_y)
Post #: 21
RE: Don't forget the "etc." - 11/12/2013 6:09:34 AM   
juntoalmar


Posts: 601
Joined: 9/29/2013
From: Valencia
Status: offline 		Easy. If you are trying to implement a game that has “living rules” that change constantly, you can't expect to have them all implemented. Even if you do, they could change again. So, as Steve say, you have to draw a line and say “I'll do until here”. I'm a Computer Engineer myself, and I know that the very first thing that you have to do to manage a project is to lock its requirements. If WiF rules are constantly changing there is no way you can have a final version of the code done, ever. Specially when writing or modifying a rule can take a few hours to write, and months to code.


_____________________________

(my humble blog about wargames, in spanish) http://cabezadepuente.blogspot.com.es/

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 22
RE: Don't forget the "etc." - 11/12/2013 6:23:32 AM   
jomni


Posts: 2827
Joined: 11/19/2007
Status: offline 		Well the product page indicates World in Flames Final Edition. What is that?

_____________________________

My Blog
Random Wargame Name Generator

(in reply to juntoalmar)
Post #: 23
RE: Don't forget the "etc." - 11/12/2013 11:18:45 AM   
juntoalmar


Posts: 601
Joined: 9/29/2013
From: Valencia
Status: offline 		Well, I'm no expert but WiF Final edition rules apparently date of 2004.

Have rules changed since 2004? Are they going to change in the future?

I don't understand, but it seems to me that people are accepting continuous changes in ADG WiF and at the same time don't accept that MWiF may change in the short future.

"If the subject is moving, don't pretend the photo to be focused."

_____________________________

(my humble blog about wargames, in spanish) http://cabezadepuente.blogspot.com.es/

(in reply to jomni)
Post #: 24
RE: Don't forget the "etc." - 11/12/2013 11:27:18 AM   
Joseignacio


Posts: 2449
Joined: 5/8/2009
From: Madrid, Spain
Status: offline 		The rules have changes substantially since 2004. In fact, there is a small revolution going on, with new sets of rules, distributed only in a few groups of players as beta testers. And for better they have been simplified in size, have converted into standard rules what were optional rules, etc..

Apart from that there is what would be considered a Mod in a computer game, which in ADG products is the Patton and the Days of Decision, although these "mods" are from ADG too.

There is a whole WIF world to discover, and I hope that the update to 2013 will be the first to come after the AI.

< Message edited by Joseignacio -- 11/12/2013 12:27:27 PM >

(in reply to juntoalmar)
Post #: 25
RE: Don't forget the "etc." - 11/12/2013 11:28:40 AM   
Joseignacio


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

ORIGINAL: jomni

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


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

(in reply to jomni)
Post #: 26
RE: Don't forget the "etc." - 11/12/2013 12:14:28 PM   
pzgndr

 

Posts: 3170
Joined: 3/18/2004
From: Maryland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

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


Now THAT'S funny! It makes one pause to consider the sheer difficulty of one programmer picking up another programmer's work, sometimes years later and with a different language/compiler for the latest operating system(s). There are many who seem to think old computer games can be easily converted and updated. Yeah, right, no problem. And for games in development just throw in some "help", as if anyone can simply step in and make it happen sooner. There was a Dilbert cartoon about a project needing another 100 man-hours to complete, so the boss hired 99 more programmers and expected it to get done in another hour. Uh-huh.

I will ask about another of those etc. items. Any estimate for when the half-map ETO and PTO scenarios get released? That's something someone else could "help" knock out in parallel with code development.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 27
RE: Don't forget the "etc." - 11/12/2013 12:40:49 PM   
JameyCribbs

 

Posts: 35
Joined: 2/27/2007
Status: offline
quote:

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

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

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


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


Well, if you are claiming to be an "expert" because you have "20 years of software development experience", then I've got you trumped, bub, with 29+ years of programming. So, when you state that you think that Steve has overstated the complexity of the code, I as an "expert" with 9+ years of programming experience more than you, say that you are full of beans. There is NO WAY that someone can judge the complexity of someone else's code until they have been able to study that code in depth. And you haven't even seen his friggin' code!

So, if you want to complain that mwif does not have all the optional components that you wanted it to have, go right ahead, but, please stop trying to tell Steve how hard his code is to work on or what methodologies he should use to develop his code. You sound silly.

(in reply to icitrom_y)
Post #: 28
RE: Don't forget the "etc." - 11/12/2013 1:11:34 PM   
SamuraiProgrmmr

 

Posts: 353
Joined: 10/17/2004
From: Paducah, Kentucky
Status: offline 		These comments do not necessarily reflect the opinions of anyone at Matrix Games

quote:

ORIGINAL: icitrom_y

Steve and the resident apologists;

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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







icitrom_y (and others),

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

Now. Having said that.

Listen up!

You, sir, are despicable

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

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

Oh wait, I bet you are a manager!

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

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

THEN

Kindly leave the premises

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

Others, can I get some AMENs before I leave?

Sincerely


< Message edited by SamuraiProgrammer -- 11/12/2013 7:38:09 PM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to icitrom_y)
Post #: 29
RE: Don't forget the "etc." - 11/12/2013 1:12:59 PM   
Lingering Frey

 

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

ORIGINAL: Joseignacio


quote:

ORIGINAL: jomni

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


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


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

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

(in reply to Joseignacio)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> Don't forget the "etc." Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.375