Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Mandatory Losses Not Enforced

 
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 >> Mandatory Losses Not Enforced Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Mandatory Losses Not Enforced - 1/9/2015 1:33:01 PM   
sablewyvern

 

Posts: 21
Joined: 1/8/2008
From: Australia
Status: offline 		So, it would appear that mandatory losses (Winter, Engineer or ARM/MECH/MOT) are not actually enforced by the game.

This is especially problematic given that you can't go even go back and correct a mistake if it is noticed.

Any reason it's set up like this? Or is it a bug? I'm running 1.2.1.5, if it makes a difference.
Post #: 1
RE: Mandatory Losses Not Enforced - 1/9/2015 2:17:41 PM   
composer99


Posts: 2923
Joined: 6/6/2005
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline 		I can't see how that's anything other than a bug.

_____________________________

~ Composer99

(in reply to sablewyvern)
Post #: 2
RE: Mandatory Losses Not Enforced - 1/9/2015 2:54:54 PM   
gravyhair

 

Posts: 164
Joined: 3/15/2003
Status: offline 		I've seen them enforced multiple times in our games, so maybe you can be more specific ... ?

_____________________________

Wise Men Still Seek Him

(in reply to composer99)
Post #: 3
RE: Mandatory Losses Not Enforced - 1/9/2015 3:01:06 PM   
sablewyvern

 

Posts: 21
Joined: 1/8/2008
From: Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: gravyhair

I've seen them enforced multiple times in our games, so maybe you can be more specific ... ?


I've seen it come up twice. Both times it stated "1st loss must come from XXX", but you can still select whatever unit you want and click ok.

Most recently it was an Engineer unit used in a city assault, and previously it was MOT/MECH/ARM after a blitz.

< Message edited by IX240 -- 1/9/2015 4:02:14 PM >

(in reply to gravyhair)
Post #: 4
RE: Mandatory Losses Not Enforced - 1/9/2015 3:21:05 PM   
jcrohio

 

Posts: 470
Joined: 4/4/2005
From: Ohio
Status: offline 		I just had the same thing happen to the engineer unit in Interactive Tutorial 16 Land Unit Movement and Combat

(in reply to sablewyvern)
Post #: 5
RE: Mandatory Losses Not Enforced - 1/9/2015 3:43:32 PM   
NCommander

 

Posts: 114
Joined: 11/26/2007
Status: offline 		Its a known bug, and on the list.

(in reply to jcrohio)
Post #: 6
RE: Mandatory Losses Not Enforced - 1/9/2015 6:12:38 PM   
paulderynck


Posts: 8201
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline 		And likely not a high priority since it can be enforced by the players, but it will get fixed at some point.


_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to NCommander)
Post #: 7
RE: Mandatory Losses Not Enforced - 1/10/2015 4:24:45 PM   
joshuamnave

 

Posts: 967
Joined: 1/8/2014
Status: offline 		I can't begin to tell you how much this response irks me. The entire game can be enforced by the players. I can get vassal and the wif module for free and enforce it by the players. I can set up the boardgame in my living room and enforce it by the players. The only reason to buy the computer game is so that I *don't* have to enforce it. When the software doesn't do it, it is a bug, period. And this one has been a known bug for over a year. Not fixing it is bull*(&#

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 8
RE: Mandatory Losses Not Enforced - 1/10/2015 5:18:50 PM   
Centuur


Posts: 8802
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Zartacla

I can't begin to tell you how much this response irks me. The entire game can be enforced by the players. I can get vassal and the wif module for free and enforce it by the players. I can set up the boardgame in my living room and enforce it by the players. The only reason to buy the computer game is so that I *don't* have to enforce it. When the software doesn't do it, it is a bug, period. And this one has been a known bug for over a year. Not fixing it is bull*(&#


Bugs are fixed in a certain order. Bugs which can be enforced by the player by simply making the right decision are lower on the list as compared to bus which the player can't do anything about. That seems reasonable to me. The bug list isn't "first in, first out". I expect this bug to be one of the last to be fixed...

_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to joshuamnave)
Post #: 9
RE: Mandatory Losses Not Enforced - 1/11/2015 12:25:55 AM   
sablewyvern

 

Posts: 21
Joined: 1/8/2008
From: Australia
Status: offline 		Yeah, I didn't take Paul's response to indicate it's not important, just that it's not as important as others. Something that actively prevents correct enforcement is of more importance than something that relies on players paying attention and desiring to play within the rules.

(in reply to Centuur)
Post #: 10
RE: Mandatory Losses Not Enforced - 1/11/2015 3:37:50 AM   
paulderynck


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

ORIGINAL: Zartacla

I can't begin to tell you how much this response irks me. The entire game can be enforced by the players. I can get vassal and the wif module for free and enforce it by the players. I can set up the boardgame in my living room and enforce it by the players. The only reason to buy the computer game is so that I *don't* have to enforce it. When the software doesn't do it, it is a bug, period. And this one has been a known bug for over a year. Not fixing it is bull*(&#

I did not say it was not a bug. I did not say it would not get fixed. AAMOF I don't know for sure if Steve may look at it and fix it sooner than later. I merely expressed my opinion, to which I am entitled, just as you are to yours.

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to joshuamnave)
Post #: 11
RE: Mandatory Losses Not Enforced - 1/11/2015 7:42:32 AM   
jusi


Posts: 127
Joined: 11/18/2013
From: Fontenay-aux-Roses, France
Status: offline 		In some cases, you have to lost 1 unit which should be 1 ENG, 1 PARA and 1 ARM (just one example). Is there a mandatory order or can you choose the one you prefer?

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 12
RE: Mandatory Losses Not Enforced - 1/11/2015 4:04:19 PM   
Courtenay


Posts: 4003
Joined: 11/12/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jusi

In some cases, you have to lost 1 unit which should be 1 ENG, 1 PARA and 1 ARM (just one example). Is there a mandatory order or can you choose the one you prefer?

There is a mandatory order. ENG units that provided a bonus must be lost first. Winterized units that provided a bonus must be second. HQ-ARM, ARM, or MECH on the blitz table are third. Invading or paradropping units when you don't take the hex are last, and must be eliminated even if all losses have been taken by other units.

For example, if you attack a city by paradrop in snow and use an ENG and a winterized unit, and take a loss of one, you must kill the ENG, the winterized units survives, and, only after you do that all the paradropped units die.

Note that currently MWiF has a bug here; because it does not do mandatory losses correctly, it will use the paradrop losses to absorb all the casualties, and the ENG will survive. This is a bug, and will eventually be fixed, but I do not expect it to be fixed soon.

_____________________________

I thought I knew how to play this game....

(in reply to jusi)
Post #: 13
RE: Mandatory Losses Not Enforced - 1/11/2015 4:56:41 PM   
76mm


Posts: 4688
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Washington, DC
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur
Bugs are fixed in a certain order. Bugs which can be enforced by the player by simply making the right decision are lower on the list as compared to bus which the player can't do anything about.


hmmm, that's great, but the game's been out for more than a year, with fixing bugs at the top of the list before moving to NetPlay, other scenarios, AI, etc., and they still haven't gotten to bugs they've known about almost since launch? Very disappointing...

(in reply to Centuur)
Post #: 14
RE: Mandatory Losses Not Enforced - 1/11/2015 5:09:19 PM   
paulderynck


Posts: 8201
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline 		You missed the monthly progress reports obviously. Game stopping bugs were to be fixed along with the following three areas focused upon, in order: Supply, Production and Naval bugs. Then NetPlay. We are now on NetPlay. Game stoppers will always get attention.

No one is happy there were as many bugs as there were upon release. The word count for RAW7 section 1.1 to just before the glossary is over 93000. Figuring 8 words per sentence, subtracting 10% for examples, and likely a rule that needed coding per every two sentences, you still get around 4000 rules that would have had to be coded. The game is a work of art and it's getting progressively better.

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 15
RE: Mandatory Losses Not Enforced - 1/11/2015 10:38:48 PM   
goulash

 

Posts: 91
Joined: 8/4/2011
Status: offline 		I have to share the same feelings as others here which is to express my disappointment that spending over 100 UK pounds to get this game at release and be 12 months from now and still unable to play a game as a noob without running into bugs which mean having to find workarounds is very disappointing.

As a new player to the digit,Al game only, I would like to have thought that a stable basic rules game would be the first priority.

I am not getting any updates and am not going to beta test each trial patch. The last official update has been some time now and it is sad that we have to wait and wait for this game to be playable without workarounds.

I don't care for net play or at until the rules etc are sorted. Progress on this game is too slow for the price that was asked for it so I can completely understand people when they rant. I feel the same.

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 16
RE: Mandatory Losses Not Enforced - 1/12/2015 3:37:30 AM   
76mm


Posts: 4688
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Washington, DC
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck
You missed the monthly progress reports obviously.

Actually I review the forum on a regular basis; I never said that there hasn't been progress, but the problem is how much work had to be (and remains to be) done on the the game AFTER release. More than a year later, there are still bugs--apparently at least the ones that players are expected to work around, ala VASSAL. And of course no half-map scenarios, only beginning NetPlay, etc. not to mention the lack of AI for the foreseeable future.

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck
No one is happy there were as many bugs as there were upon release.

OK, but I think it is more than fair that some of us should also be unhappy that these issues remain outstanding more than a year after release.

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 17
RE: Mandatory Losses Not Enforced - 1/12/2015 4:25:10 AM   
Numdydar

 

Posts: 3211
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline 		I can understand people feeling let down at the rate of progress, etc. But unlike so many games, even ones by Matrix, this one is still getting patches and progress is being made. Expectations that the game should have been perfect on release is a little extreme. The issue with all these games, WitP, WitE, even WitW, is that developers can only fix so many issues with the limited number of testers available.

Matrix did not expect this many issues with the release either. So no one really knew that the release was going to be like this. Issues yes, complete breakdown of game play no.

I am fully confident that everything will be resolved. Even the AI as there has already been a lot of work done on that. I am playing a GW game right now under the latest beta and it is working great.

As an interesting aside, people on the WitW forums are maing similar comments about that game and want to wait for patches, etc. as they do not want to be beta testers either

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 18
RE: Mandatory Losses Not Enforced - 1/12/2015 4:33:29 AM   
NCommander

 

Posts: 114
Joined: 11/26/2007
Status: offline 		Honestly, as long as we keep getting patches, I'm not going to complain. I'd be very angry if I spent $100 and we were still stuck with the game as it was released, but Steve has shown he's going to keep going at this until the game is fully bugproof, all the optionals are added, etc, and I'm perfectly fine with that.

(in reply to Numdydar)
Post #: 19
RE: Mandatory Losses Not Enforced - 1/12/2015 4:56:40 AM   
David Clark

 

Posts: 39
Joined: 2/24/2005
Status: offline 		When considering which bugs need to be prioritized, I think it's important to also remember that the further development of WiF has a time limit - Steve is the sole developer, and his health is fragile. When he dies or retires due to poor health, the game will be abandoned by Matrix, and players will be left with whatever beta version was the last one to be released.

So if there are, lets say, three thousand remaining bugs, and Steve has the capacity to repair 300 of them before his age or declining health forces the abandonment of the project, it's apparently important to prioritize those bugs that are game-breaking. (I say apparently, because it's hard to imagine wanting to spend the last months or years of ones life bugfixing a niche product with no prospects of significant further sales. Maybe he feels differently - we all have different values I guess).

This is the main reason why I would really encourage Matrix to reconsider their decision to prevent the exposure of the Debug menu - when the game is abandoned, the players will have to work around all the remaining bugs, and our ability to do that without the debug menu will be greatly diminished. I would be reassured by a statement by Matrix that promised to release a debug-enabled final version following Steve's death or abandonment of the project.

It's also important to remember that new bugs are introduced every time a bug is fixed - regressions make the selection of bugfixes even more important. We don't want to encourage the fixing of minor bugs, if that fixing inevitably breaks major game systems.

(in reply to NCommander)
Post #: 20
RE: Mandatory Losses Not Enforced - 1/12/2015 5:49:40 AM   
76mm


Posts: 4688
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Washington, DC
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar
Expectations that the game should have been perfect on release is a little extreme.

hoo boy, here come the "straw man arguments"...I don't recall anyone suggesting that the game should have been perfect upon release, or even perfect a year after release. But it should be significantly further along than it is.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar
The issue with all these games, WitP, WitE, even WitW, is that developers can only fix so many issues with the limited number of testers available.

Just to clarify--testers identify issues, not fix them, which the devs should do. I wasn't part of the beta team so can't really comment, although to me it seems that blaming game issues on lack of available testers is rather odd--I thought that this game had been in development for many years, with die-hard fans practically frothing at the mouth to get their hands on the game--I would think that there would have been plenty of beta testers. The question is whether Matrix and Steve could be bothered to deal with all of the resulting feedback and then delay the game as necessary to resolve outstanding issues.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar
As an interesting aside, people on the WitW forums are making similar comments about that game and want to wait for patches, etc. as they do not want to be beta testers either

I have not bought WitW, although I review the forum, and it sounds like it was much more polished than this game or WitE upon release, although they certainly have further tweaking to do.

Sure, its great that there is steady (if slow) progress with this game, it is certainly better than how some other games have worked out, but in future I will keep my money in my pocket for any conversions of complex board games until they are demonstrated as fully-baked. I have always wanted to pick up Empires in Arms, but it sounded like a mess upon release and by now it sounds like it's just been abandoned...

< Message edited by 76mm -- 1/12/2015 6:51:23 AM >

(in reply to Numdydar)
Post #: 21
RE: Mandatory Losses Not Enforced - 1/12/2015 7:00:21 AM   
Numdydar

 

Posts: 3211
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline 		EiA is pretty bad and development on it has stopped entirely. Which makes the point I was making about WiF. Progress is still being made, it may not be as fast as everyone would like, but this is far better than EiA.

We respectfully disagree on the current game state. You feel that it should be further along. But that is just based on your feeling without any knowledge of what is actually going on in the beta forum. I do not know either, but based on my own recent experience with the game, it is in pretty good shape.

Of course if you wanted the game fixes to be further along, then you can do what I do and report things as I find them like others do. Who knows with your involvement in helping out we could have an AI by now

I definitely understand if that is not something you want or are willing to do. So no harm no foul in not helping.

WitW is in a lot better shape since it is based on the WitE engine and did not have to be coded based on a very think rule set designed for a physical game. The WitE forums had very similar threads like this about progress being slow, major issues need resolution. Just like WitP, WitE is still being patched 4 years out with major changes to the game. So in comparison, WiF's rate of fixes is going very fast

Just some things to consider.

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 22
RE: Mandatory Losses Not Enforced - 1/12/2015 7:49:40 AM   
76mm


Posts: 4688
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Washington, DC
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar
EiA is pretty bad and development on it has stopped entirely. Which makes the point I was making about WiF.

Yup, that was one I was looking forward to, but wanted to wait until it was patched, and then... Sad.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar
Of course if you wanted the game fixes to be further along, then you can do what I do and report things as I find them like others do. Who knows with your involvement in helping out we could have an AI by now

I definitely understand if that is not something you want or are willing to do. So no harm no foul in not helping.

I'm actually playing through a GW game now; have encountered (and reported) some weird bugs but neglected make saves to post, so I'll try to do that in future. I'd be glad to help identify bugs--no disrespect intended, but I think that the current batch of beta testers have outlived some degree of usefulness--they are all very familiar with the game at this point, it works on their machines, etc. etc., but that doesn't mean that newcomers won't have problems.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar
WitW is in a lot better shape since it is based on the WitE engine and did not have to be coded based on a very think rule set designed for a physical game. The WitE forums had very similar threads like this about progress being slow, major issues need resolution. Just like WitP, WitE is still being patched 4 years out with major changes to the game. So in comparison, WiF's rate of fixes is going very fast

Yes, I played WitE a lot when it first came out, but for a variety of reasons eventually gave up on it. The main reason, I think, is that I just don't like Grigsby games--over-engineered, convoluted, black-box combat mechanics, etc. I just didn't think that the game felt like the war in Russia--at all... And the law of unintended consequences (aggravated by the complicated mechanics and the difficulty of modeling the war in Russia) ensured that every patch that fixed one thing broke another. Kudos to Matrix and the devs for bringing out another patch, but patches won't save that game for me.

< Message edited by 76mm -- 1/12/2015 8:51:29 AM >

(in reply to Numdydar)
Post #: 23
RE: Mandatory Losses Not Enforced - 1/12/2015 3:23:36 PM   
Numdydar

 

Posts: 3211
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline 		Maybe WitE 2.0 will bring you back when it comes out in a few years

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 24
RE: Mandatory Losses Not Enforced - 1/12/2015 5:40:19 PM   
joshuamnave

 

Posts: 967
Joined: 1/8/2014
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar


Of course if you wanted the game fixes to be further along, then you can do what I do and report things as I find them like others do. Who knows with your involvement in helping out we could have an AI by now



You seriously need to stop with this. I'm a customer, not an employee and not a beta tester. My sole responsibility in this is to give Matrix money. Matrix responsibility is to give me the product as advertised. I have lived up to my ONLY responsibility in this contract, Matrix has not, and has shown little interest in making it right.

That aside, because I do want the product I purchased to work as intended and for the development to continue on to include the features that were advertised as part of the game but are as of yet not even being worked on, I report bugs. I reported the bug in question over a year ago, and it has been reported repeatedly since then. Same with peacekeepers (for which there IS NO WORKAROUND) and several others. Matrix or Steve decided not to fix those bugs before moving on to Netplay, so forgive me (or don't, I don't really care if this offends you or not) if I don't share your smug certainty that everything will work out in the end.

Yes, I feel entitled to rant, and I think others who are upset about the state of the game are equally entitled to their anger. You're entitled to be an apologist if it makes you happy. But don't expect the rest of us to just say "oh, well if a few of the beta testers and fan boys think it's all hunky dory we'll just suck it up and be glad we donated money to a hobby project even if we thought we were buying a finished game".

How cool would it be if a few thousand people donated 100 bucks to me so I could pursue my hobbies?

(in reply to Numdydar)
Post #: 25
RE: Mandatory Losses Not Enforced - 1/12/2015 5:42:34 PM   
AxelNL


Posts: 2386
Joined: 9/24/2011
From: The Netherlands
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar
EiA is pretty bad and development on it has stopped entirely. Which makes the point I was making about WiF.

Yup, that was one I was looking forward to, but wanted to wait until it was patched, and then... Sad.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar
Of course if you wanted the game fixes to be further along, then you can do what I do and report things as I find them like others do. Who knows with your involvement in helping out we could have an AI by now

I definitely understand if that is not something you want or are willing to do. So no harm no foul in not helping.

I'm actually playing through a GW game now; have encountered (and reported) some weird bugs but neglected make saves to post, so I'll try to do that in future. I'd be glad to help identify bugs--no disrespect intended, but I think that the current batch of beta testers have outlived some degree of usefulness--

that is the first time I have been declared being some degree of useless. I am currently testing netplay, which is getting better every week because of two pairs of betatesters, amongst myself.

quote:

they are all very familiar with the game at this point, it works on their machines, etc. etc., but that doesn't mean that newcomers won't have problems.
actually in Netplay things did not work on my machine as well
quote:



quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar
WitW is in a lot better shape since it is based on the WitE engine and did not have to be coded based on a very think rule set designed for a physical game. The WitE forums had very similar threads like this about progress being slow, major issues need resolution. Just like WitP, WitE is still being patched 4 years out with major changes to the game. So in comparison, WiF's rate of fixes is going very fast

Yes, I played WitE a lot when it first came out, but for a variety of reasons eventually gave up on it. The main reason, I think, is that I just don't like Grigsby games--over-engineered, convoluted, black-box combat mechanics, etc. I just didn't think that the game felt like the war in Russia--at all... And the law of unintended consequences (aggravated by the complicated mechanics and the difficulty of modeling the war in Russia) ensured that every patch that fixed one thing broke another. Kudos to Matrix and the devs for bringing out another patch, but patches won't save that game for me.


ah well - the joy of being a beta tester. I can imagine the frustration some of the posters have. I had a major moment of that last spring, but got over it.

< Message edited by AxelNL -- 1/12/2015 6:43:06 PM >

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 26
RE: Mandatory Losses Not Enforced - 1/12/2015 5:51:20 PM   
76mm


Posts: 4688
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Washington, DC
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar
Maybe WitE 2.0 will bring you back when it comes out in a few years

I'll almost certainly buy it, it sounds like the logistics treatment from WitW will make a big difference. Ultimately, however, I'm just not a fan of the whole game model--the IGOUGO movement, the bizarre combat model, strange (to my mind) decisions over what players control and don't control, etc.

Most important, I am not convinced that the war in Russia in its entirety is really susceptible to being modeled well in a wargame--so much of what made the campaign what it was was based on very poor decisions by both sides that players (with full hindsight) are not likely to replicate. So the war inevitably ends up a very different beast from history, with very different ebb and flow. Nothing wrong with that, it just ends up feeling like a different war...

< Message edited by 76mm -- 1/12/2015 6:52:17 PM >

(in reply to Numdydar)
Post #: 27
RE: Mandatory Losses Not Enforced - 1/12/2015 7:10:27 PM   
brian brian

 

Posts: 3191
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar
Maybe WitE 2.0 will bring you back when it comes out in a few years

I'll almost certainly buy it, it sounds like the logistics treatment from WitW will make a big difference. Ultimately, however, I'm just not a fan of the whole game model--the IGOUGO movement, the bizarre combat model, strange (to my mind) decisions over what players control and don't control, etc.

Most important, I am not convinced that the war in Russia in its entirety is really susceptible to being modeled well in a wargame--so much of what made the campaign what it was was based on very poor decisions by both sides that players (with full hindsight) are not likely to replicate. So the war inevitably ends up a very different beast from history, with very different ebb and flow. Nothing wrong with that, it just ends up feeling like a different war...


This is a fascinating post for me. I didn't realize those particular games were I-Go-You-Go. That whole system of gaming should be a relic of the 20th century now that we are obviously mostly going to play games on computers. I am just starting to poke around to find a designer who designs to use the power of technology to simulate military decision making, which always had to be done in real time, on limited accuracy information, and frequently with time delays in the transmission of that information from and to the scene of battle (though I like games that simulate what is beyond a commander's control, such as which aircraft design comes off the production lines first, as in WiF). I don't see any reason a good game design can't use technology to simulate those factors. In the American Civil War, for example (and many others of course), Army commanders had to maneuver entire wings of their army on one or more hour delays in receiving information and their units receiving their orders. I have never seen that in a paper war-game beyond a limited use of "activation" type die rolls to see if units move or not.

First person shooters get limited intell exactly correct, from what I can tell. Your information is what you can "see" on the screen, and possibly some sort of message feed via audio, or text.

If someone is designing operational and strategic games of WWII like that, I would like to know. Limiting the player's information could go a long way towards getting around the advantages of historical hindsight. When you take the role of Manstein on the Don, you know the Red Army has tricks up it's sleeves from history. You might not know that Foreign Armies East / Rossler / Lucy sent you false details on those tricks in your situation reports while tipping those plans to the Soviets, to give just one example of what design could do.

Anyway, paper games have a very hard time simulating these types of issues; it's time to move on from the paper model in strategic wargaming.

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 28
RE: Mandatory Losses Not Enforced - 1/12/2015 11:17:44 PM   
Numdydar

 

Posts: 3211
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline 		The best non-IGUGO operational I have played is ToaW III. The best tactical is Flashpoint Campaigns (which is WWIII, not II) Strategic is going to be WitP AE Of course if you want individual people, then any Battles fox X will work or Panzer Command. But then small unit games tend not be use this model anyway.

Of course these are just my opinions and I am sure others will have differing thoughts

(in reply to brian brian)
Post #: 29
RE: Mandatory Losses Not Enforced - 1/12/2015 11:46:55 PM   
Numdydar

 

Posts: 3211
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Zartacla


quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar


Of course if you wanted the game fixes to be further along, then you can do what I do and report things as I find them like others do. Who knows with your involvement in helping out we could have an AI by now



You seriously need to stop with this. I'm a customer, not an employee and not a beta tester. My sole responsibility in this is to give Matrix money. Matrix responsibility is to give me the product as advertised. I have lived up to my ONLY responsibility in this contract, Matrix has not, and has shown little interest in making it right.

That aside, because I do want the product I purchased to work as intended and for the development to continue on to include the features that were advertised as part of the game but are as of yet not even being worked on, I report bugs. I reported the bug in question over a year ago, and it has been reported repeatedly since then. Same with peacekeepers (for which there IS NO WORKAROUND) and several others. Matrix or Steve decided not to fix those bugs before moving on to Netplay, so forgive me (or don't, I don't really care if this offends you or not) if I don't share your smug certainty that everything will work out in the end.

Yes, I feel entitled to rant, and I think others who are upset about the state of the game are equally entitled to their anger. You're entitled to be an apologist if it makes you happy. But don't expect the rest of us to just say "oh, well if a few of the beta testers and fan boys think it's all hunky dory we'll just suck it up and be glad we donated money to a hobby project even if we thought we were buying a finished game".

How cool would it be if a few thousand people donated 100 bucks to me so I could pursue my hobbies?


Tell me how you really feel

I already stated in my post that I understood that some people would not want to feel like they were beta testers after buying a product. Nor did I say anything about you should not rant/be upstate/etc. on the forum.

You think it is terrible to have spent this much money and you still feel like you have not gotten the game you paid for. I happen to agree with you believe it or not.

The difference is I really do not expect to ever get any PC game that I pay for to be what I expect it to be. It certainly helps keep my expectations low so when I get a turkey it is not the end of the world.

I bought WiF on release, stopped playing while the issues were resolved. Posted a few bug reports, etc. Even with my off and on playing I still feel I got what I paid for and have definitely have gotten my monies worth. You obviously feel that you have not gotten anything out of your purchase. That does not make me right and you wrong or visa versa. It just means we disagree. Which is fine.

To me though I would much rather have WiF released than still be waiting for it. At least now most of the issues are known, and will eventually all be fixed. Along with others that remain to be discovered.

How much longer would you wanted to wait? Two years? Three? Would you then be complaining about why the release was taking so long? If you go back in the forum, you will find threads with people complaining very vocally about the release. They wanted it now.

So if you were in charge and people were constantly complaining about releasing the game what would you have done? Tell them to wait just a few more years? So it would be 12 years in development? With no one getting paid? And we would still have similar bugs and issues regardless, maybe not as many or as severe but who knows? Regadless of how long the development time takes there is no way a game like this would not release with issues given the limited size of the testing team. Like it or not, it is just the way the business model works for games like these.

Even War in the West still have VPs for cities messed up since launch and is just getting fixed. Which you would think is a pretty important thing to make sure was correct at launch.

This is not apologetic. It is just stating the facts of how wargames with 1-3 people developing them have to operate. If anyone had a better business model where everyone can still make money it would have been used by now. But since it has not, then we are left with all of us paying customers helping out to further the hobby and support the small number of people making these games.

Again, no harm, no foul for those that feel that as paying customers you should not have to do that. But I just accept this 'extra beta' testing as part of the 'extra' price I have to pay in order for these kinds of games to continue to be made. But that is just me


< Message edited by Numdydar -- 1/13/2015 12:50:20 AM >

(in reply to joshuamnave)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> Mandatory Losses Not Enforced 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

3.875