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: Option 47

 
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: Option 47 Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Option 47 - 4/26/2015 10:31:23 PM   
Centuur


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

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

I dusted off my Fire the East manual just to illustrate the point of what most games do with Out-of-Supply units. The OOS units are destroyed.

Tracing supply in Fire in East is a bit difficult due to the fact that there are different rail gauges, as well as trucks supplying units near the front for the Germans.

However, it's pretty evident what the results of being out of supply, and being unable to trace supply are:

12D) Supply Effects
A unit out of supply has its abilities restricted, depending on the number of consecutive turns the unit is out of supply. Fire in the East turns are 1 week long.
On the first turn out of supply, a unit has it's attack strength halved
On the second and subsequent turns out of supply, a unit has it's attack, defense, AA, and movement rating are halved.
During each initial phase starting with the fourth turn out of supply (1 month), a d6 is rolled, and on a 4 or higher, the unit is eliminated.
Modified by:
-2 if the unit is in a fortress or major city,
+1 for frost weather
+2 during snow weather

So to summarize, surrounded units, which haven't even been attacked, start to be destroyed after being out of supply for 1 month? Wow, that seems sorta mean. Even in cities? Why would that rule be there?


Personally, I don't like option 47, because it has some serious flaws in it. Consider a Italian unit in Italian East Africa which can be put easily out of supply. That is something which I can live with. But now it moves and even without any enemy troops within more than 1.000 km. it won't get reorganised anymore? That's ridiculous...

On the other hand, there are the surrounded units which do appear in the USSR from time to time. Surrounded by enemy units which are in contact with those units, so you could consider those to be slowly getting exhausted. So I agree that those should not get reorganised, if you would attack those units each turn at least once. If you leave those pockets alone, why shouldn't they get reorganised? Only containing units isn't enough, because soldiers can rest and regroup to defend...

This option has it's downsides too. And apart from this, I never understand why units are suddenly "disappearing" from a game without having been attacked because they are out of supply. Look at the French ports the Allies bypassed during the war. The German units where still in those places after 8 or 9 months of encirclement. And they often were still capable of defending those ports, had the Allies decided to attack.

Sure, encircled units cannot attack if the are out of supply. That's something I agree on. But not reorganised? That's something I don't agree on.

< Message edited by Centuur -- 4/26/2015 11:32:18 PM >

_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to Zorachus99)
Post #: 211
RE: Option 47 - 4/27/2015 7:15:06 AM   
Joseignacio


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

ORIGINAL: Centuur

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

I dusted off my Fire the East manual just to illustrate the point of what most games do with Out-of-Supply units. The OOS units are destroyed.

Tracing supply in Fire in East is a bit difficult due to the fact that there are different rail gauges, as well as trucks supplying units near the front for the Germans.

However, it's pretty evident what the results of being out of supply, and being unable to trace supply are:

12D) Supply Effects
A unit out of supply has its abilities restricted, depending on the number of consecutive turns the unit is out of supply. Fire in the East turns are 1 week long.
On the first turn out of supply, a unit has it's attack strength halved
On the second and subsequent turns out of supply, a unit has it's attack, defense, AA, and movement rating are halved.
During each initial phase starting with the fourth turn out of supply (1 month), a d6 is rolled, and on a 4 or higher, the unit is eliminated.
Modified by:
-2 if the unit is in a fortress or major city,
+1 for frost weather
+2 during snow weather

So to summarize, surrounded units, which haven't even been attacked, start to be destroyed after being out of supply for 1 month? Wow, that seems sorta mean. Even in cities? Why would that rule be there?




This option has it's downsides too. And apart from this, I never understand why units are suddenly "disappearing" from a game without having been attacked because they are out of supply. Look at the French ports the Allies bypassed during the war. The German units where still in those places after 8 or 9 months of encirclement. And they often were still capable of defending those ports, had the Allies decided to attack.

Sure, encircled units cannot attack if the are out of supply. That's something I agree on. But not reorganised? That's something I don't agree on.


That the units disappear is something I can't take either. I hate it and that's one of the things I hate most of the series Path of Glory - Pursuit of Glory - Shifting Sands, the other being the move OR fight system.

However, a unit without supply and bombed in the real life had few possibilities to restore to it's usual power. First, after being dispersed by air or artillery attacks, they usually had lost most of their material (heavier weapons, transport and ammo).

True, they still could usually get food and water from the areas they were in "foraging" or forcing the local authorities to collaborate, but even if they could regroup most of their people, they would be a depleted force till they received a full supply. It's not only about regrouping disperse units.

The fact that a bombed unit is flipped and not restored unless it gets supplied it's totally ok for me, letting that unit restore at the end of the turn full force makes no sense to me because of the afore mentioned.

If I wanted to improve option 47 I would:

- Not let that unit restore until normal supply is gotten.
- Deplete the unit every turn (with a -1, -2, -3, ... marker for combat power or a strong dice modifier) unless they are in a depot (city, fort, ...).

but

- Let it move (with some handicap - modifier) cause those units could still make some damage in the enemy's rearguard if left alone, like cutting railroad, occupying unprotected cities, etc.

(in reply to Centuur)
Post #: 212
RE: Option 47 - 4/27/2015 12:00:53 PM   
Centuur


Posts: 8802
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: offline 		Interesting view. But is one bombardment (by either artillery or aircraft) enough to deplete a unit in such a way that they can't be reorganised until fully resupplied?

I don't know. Personally, I believe that option 47 would be much better if one would only allow OOS units to reorganise if they are:

1. not adjacent to enemy land units and they can't move into any other hex without entering enemy ZOC (i.e. they are surrounded);

Or:

2. In a port adjacent to a sea zone containing surface naval units with which they can cooperate. HQ's function as a port themselves for this rule.

Personally, I think that this would be better than as it is now written in that option.

The penalty for moving when OOS looks good enough in WiF for me. The same is the fact that you can't attack with an OOS unit. You don't want an OOS unit to get reorganised? Surround it and it will stay down. Don't surround it and it will reorganise.

This way, one can't ignore disorganised surrounded units (by moving all units away from them, which is ridiculous) and one hasn't got that crazy thing anymore with an OOS unit which isn't under attack and stays disorganised for ever...



_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to Joseignacio)
Post #: 213
RE: Option 47 - 5/9/2015 4:34:49 PM   
Zorachus99


Posts: 1066
Joined: 9/15/2000
From: Palo Alto, CA
Status: offline 		Thought I'd share an actual conversation I had over Skype recently regarding supply.

[9:15:18 AM] cmdrcraig: so, is there any chance that the Powers that be will ever offer the fix tool for wif?
[9:16:08 AM] zorachus: the answer is never
[9:16:15 AM] zorachus: absoute refusal
[9:17:08 AM] cmdrcraig: well, if not then the game is kinda ****ed unless we accept its short comings and play it anyways... I will wait until you decide we can proceed
[9:17:48 AM] zorachus: it's too damn broken. And wasting moves to try to fix things is BS
[9:18:16 AM] zorachus: Some idiot offered to fix my games from the beta testers, but I would have to submit our ****ing game every end of turn
[9:18:22 AM] zorachus: and then wait for him to fix it
[9:18:26 AM] zorachus: which is totally idiotic
[9:18:56 AM] zorachus: they are ****ed up, and are way too interested in getting multiplayer working
[9:20:51 AM] cmdrcraig: :( then lets not do the extra moves, I am willing to play with them as a new, unwanted feature (penalty, price)... but you gotta want to do that also or it would not be any fun at all. I miss wif because we tend to interact alot more and I like your company online
[9:23:34 AM] cmdrcraig: released way too soon... but damned too long a wait for it in the big picture. But i agree they are ****ed in the head for not addressing a fix tool for players that want to play now and PAID THE FRIGN $100.00 to get the damned game... they are gonna kill this game off if they lose the interested players out here in the world
[9:24:27 AM] cmdrcraig: well. have a good weekend, its x5 i think so will be tanking this weekend :) lates

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Centuur)
Post #: 214
RE: Option 47 - 5/9/2015 4:51:49 PM   
brian brian

 

Posts: 3191
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline 		There is more to Option 47 than how pockets in the Ukraine work. Option 47 is a key aid in refining the grain of the logistics rules, which are very simplified. One thing it helps keep a lid on is ghost units wandering the map for several turns until they can actually get somewhere useful, forcing the opposing player to divert significant forces to do something about a partially armed band of stragglers that could accomplish little in real life.

"An Army marches on it's stomach" is the famous quote of course. A WWII Army survived on it's supply of bullets or shells for the automatic weapons, which can not be just scavenged from the country side.

In East Africa, I think things work out OK with the use of the TERRitorial units, though I highly support the post-MWiF refinement of the Territorial rules of allowing the county of origin to be selected in exchange for one extra turn of build time.

I always forget - why do the Oil dependent units trace a path of any length to meet how that rule works, but Option 47 is too complex?

(in reply to Zorachus99)
Post #: 215
RE: Option 47 - 5/9/2015 5:53:58 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

Thought I'd share an actual conversation I had over Skype recently regarding supply.

[9:15:18 AM] cmdrcraig: so, is there any chance that the Powers that be will ever offer the fix tool for wif?
[9:16:08 AM] zorachus: the answer is never
[9:16:15 AM] zorachus: absoute refusal
[9:17:08 AM] cmdrcraig: well, if not then the game is kinda ****ed unless we accept its short comings and play it anyways... I will wait until you decide we can proceed
[9:17:48 AM] zorachus: it's too damn broken. And wasting moves to try to fix things is BS
[9:18:16 AM] zorachus: Some idiot offered to fix my games from the beta testers, but I would have to submit our ****ing game every end of turn
[9:18:22 AM] zorachus: and then wait for him to fix it
[9:18:26 AM] zorachus: which is totally idiotic
[9:18:56 AM] zorachus: they are ****ed up, and are way too interested in getting multiplayer working
[9:20:51 AM] cmdrcraig: :( then lets not do the extra moves, I am willing to play with them as a new, unwanted feature (penalty, price)... but you gotta want to do that also or it would not be any fun at all. I miss wif because we tend to interact alot more and I like your company online
[9:23:34 AM] cmdrcraig: released way too soon... but damned too long a wait for it in the big picture. But i agree they are ****ed in the head for not addressing a fix tool for players that want to play now and PAID THE FRIGN $100.00 to get the damned game... they are gonna kill this game off if they lose the interested players out here in the world
[9:24:27 AM] cmdrcraig: well. have a good weekend, its x5 i think so will be tanking this weekend :) lates
warspite1

quote:

Thought I'd share an actual conversation I had over Skype recently


Why?

quote:

Some idiot offered to fix my games from the beta testers, but I would have to submit our ****ing game every end of turn


Oh I see...it's so you can slag off the beta testers again... how original

quote:

they are ****ed up, and are way too interested in getting multiplayer working


So have you been e-mailing the "****ed up powers that be" and giving them a hard time rather than just insulting the beta testers (as though the beta testers are somehow responsible for the direction of the game, its development or the time it takes or the resources available to be thrown at it) every now and then?

I ask one more time. I understand you are angry with the state of the game (and you are not the only one believe me) but give the beta tester bashing a rest eh? You may not have considered the offer to fix your game as practical, but it was well meant and calling the guy an idiot for trying to help you was more than a bit rubbish....

quote:

released way too soon..


Depends in what way you mean. If you mean it was released too soon with insufficient explanation as to where the game was in terms of development (and thus people spent money that maybe otherwise would not have) - then you may have a point. If you think the game would be more developed and any further forward had it not been released, then it is impossible to see in what way, shape or form that that assertion could possibly be true. In fact, given the input and feedback from the much wider community that has been playing the game post release, the very opposite is true - and the game would likely be less well developed if not shelved altogether had it not been released.




< Message edited by warspite1 -- 5/9/2015 7:00:40 PM >

_____________________________

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



(in reply to Zorachus99)
Post #: 216
RE: Option 47 - 5/9/2015 5:55:34 PM   
bo

 

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

9:18:16 AM] zorachus: Some idiot offered to fix my games from the beta testers, but I would have to submit our ****ing game every end of turn
[9:18:22 AM] zorachus: and then wait for him to fix it



Well said warspite!


There seems to me there are a lot of idiots in the beta testers group including me, would you be kind enough to point out that f***ing idiot that was kind enough to offer to fix your game when there is trouble probably caused by yourself, and when you identify him I will personally tell him he is a f***ing idiot for even thinking of trying to help you.

I have never personally been against your posts but this one seems like pure bulls**t with your skype buddy, is this the best you can come up with zorachus, I thought more of you than that.


Respectfully one of the idiots

Bo

< Message edited by bo -- 5/9/2015 7:00:09 PM >

(in reply to Centuur)
Post #: 217
RE: Option 47 - 5/9/2015 9:17:47 PM   
joshuamnave

 

Posts: 967
Joined: 1/8/2014
Status: offline 		Zorachus, like it or not disorganized units reorg every turn whether in supply or not. That's not a decision made by Matrix or by Steve - it's one of the base game rules from ADG so you're harassing the wrong people about fixing it. Take it up with Harry or play a game that has rules you find more palatable.

That aside, the discussion about the rule is interesting from a game design standpoint. The way it works now seems like an imperfect but workable solution to a complex problem. One of the guiding philosophies of WIF is to have one set of rules that works as broadly as possible across every situation. As a design concept, that means some rules will necessarily work better in some situations than in others, so the question becomes one of trade offs. Not allowing OOS units to reorg makes a certain amount of sense when they are in contact with an enemy and are disorganized because they were in combat or subjected to aerial bombardment. It makes less sense when we're talking about smaller units in minor theaters like Italians in east Africa who are disorganized because they are never in supply but frequently move. In fact, those situations are tough to model in a game this scale without adding a bunch of rules exceptions. So there are really three choices - a broad rule that lets too many units reorganize, a broad rule that doesn't let enough units reorganize, or additional narrowly tailored rules.

I like the first choice best, while stipulating that it is imperfect. If you use the second option, then minor theaters of the war more or less become moot. Getting supply to those units is impractical and I find that game play in minor theaters is often more interesting than game play in major theaters because major theaters break down into a few sets of fairly standard strategies. While using the first option can be frustrating as an attacker, you can at least attempt to groundstrike an OOS unit and disorganize it again. Under option 2, there is no ability to fix the issues with the rule.

(in reply to bo)
Post #: 218
RE: Option 47 - 5/9/2015 9:23:49 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Zartacla

Zorachus, like it or not disorganized units reorg every turn whether in supply or not. That's not a decision made by Matrix or by Steve - it's one of the base game rules from ADG so you're harassing the wrong people about fixing it. Take it up with Harry or play a game that has rules you find more palatable.

warspite1

But that is not what he is complaining about. The complaint stems from the fact that ADG have come up with Option 47 for those that do not like the stock rule on reorganisation. Option 47 is one of the Options that should be coded as part of MWIF - but currently isn't.

So Zorachus is not looking for possible alternatives - he just wants coded an option that already exists in WIF (but not MWIF) and that he believes is important.


_____________________________

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



(in reply to joshuamnave)
Post #: 219
RE: Option 47 - 5/9/2015 10:16:27 PM   
Centuur


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

ORIGINAL: brian brian

I always forget - why do the Oil dependent units trace a path of any length to meet how that rule works, but Option 47 is too complex?


This was discussed a long time ago in the beta testers forum too. If my memory is still OK, Steve got exceptionally calculation times when he first coded this optional rule. And that code was based on the oil dependent units reorganisation code...


_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to brian brian)
Post #: 220
RE: Option 47 - 5/10/2015 2:20:17 PM   
CrusssDaddy

 

Posts: 330
Joined: 8/6/2004
Status: offline 		Nothing needs to be coded, just unlock for paying customers the same ability to flip/unflip units that is already provided to beta testers and that existed 20 years ago in CWiF. It's that simple. Steve refuses to budge on this because perfection is his "elusive goal" and he's terrified of receiving more bug reports, and those are absolutely horsesh** reasons to sit on something that would create an enormously positive qualitative change for many of the most involved players of this broken game. He refuses to indulge the most sane, helpful and courteous little gift to people who have paid the exorbitant fee and stuck with this mess the entire time, and no one that matters calls him out on it.

His behavior is despicable, and the community is cowardly. Maybe you deserve each other?

(in reply to Centuur)
Post #: 221
RE: Option 47 - 5/10/2015 4:13:10 PM   
bo

 

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

ORIGINAL: CrusssDaddy

Nothing needs to be coded, just unlock for paying customers the same ability to flip/unflip units that is already provided to beta testers and that existed 20 years ago in CWiF. It's that simple. Steve refuses to budge on this because perfection is his "elusive goal" and he's terrified of receiving more bug reports, and those are absolutely horsesh** reasons to sit on something that would create an enormously positive qualitative change for many of the most involved players of this broken game. He refuses to indulge the most sane, helpful and courteous little gift to people who have paid the exorbitant fee and stuck with this mess the entire time, and no one that matters calls him out on it.

His behavior is despicable, and the community is cowardly. Maybe you deserve each other?




Crussdaddy, what exactly do you want Steve to do and I will personally ask him to do it if it is for the benefit of all players, I am sure he reads all the posts but give me an outline what you think the players need and again I will ask him, I am getting ready for another of my so called posts on the beta forums asking a few other things from Steve and I will be glad to add your opinion and request.

Do not stand alone crussdaddy it would help if you had some backing among the general public.

Bo

(in reply to CrusssDaddy)
Post #: 222
RE: Option 47 - 5/10/2015 4:36:17 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		I'm not ashamed to admit this but I just love this game and the global war scenario. I love the scale. I love the detail. I love the realism. A game of this magnitude didn't, and still doesn't, come easy. I had to put in the time and effort to learn it. I have to continue to put in the time and effort to learn it better.

Now with respect to option 47, if that option was so critical for me that I could't play the game without it, I'm 100% confident that I could figure out a way to implement its intended effects through house rules, offline die rolls and set (on-line) die rolls to achieve the intended result. For goodness sake how often do situations relevant to option 47 occur? Handling them in this manner until option 47 is fully implemented in WMiF doesn't seem that much of a burden to me. Am I missing something?

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to bo)
Post #: 223
RE: Option 47 - 5/10/2015 4:41:51 PM   
bo

 

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

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

I'm not ashamed to admit this but I just love this game and the global war scenario. I love the scale. I love the detail. I love the realism. A game of this magnitude didn't, and still doesn't, come easy. I had to put in the time and effort to learn it. I have to continue to put in the time and effort to learn it better.

Now with respect to option 47, if that option was so critical for me that I could't play the game without it, I'm 100% confident that I could figure out a way to implement its intended effects through house rules, offline die rolls and set (on-line) die rolls to achieve the intended result. For goodness sake how often do situations relevant to option 47 occur? Handling them in this manner until option 47 is fully implemented in WMiF doesn't seem that much of a burden to me. Am I missing something?


rkr I could be wrong but I do not think crussdaddy is referring to just option 47 but to all possible roadblocks in the game that could be helped by a beta tester tool until the game stands on it's on, just guessing.

Bo

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 224
RE: Option 47 - 5/10/2015 4:44:34 PM   
CrusssDaddy

 

Posts: 330
Joined: 8/6/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bo


quote:

ORIGINAL: CrusssDaddy

Nothing needs to be coded, just unlock for paying customers the same ability to flip/unflip units that is already provided to beta testers and that existed 20 years ago in CWiF. It's that simple. Steve refuses to budge on this because perfection is his "elusive goal" and he's terrified of receiving more bug reports, and those are absolutely horsesh** reasons to sit on something that would create an enormously positive qualitative change for many of the most involved players of this broken game. He refuses to indulge the most sane, helpful and courteous little gift to people who have paid the exorbitant fee and stuck with this mess the entire time, and no one that matters calls him out on it.

His behavior is despicable, and the community is cowardly. Maybe you deserve each other?




Crussdaddy, what exactly do you want Steve to do and I will personally ask him to do it if it is for the benefit of all players, I am sure he reads all the posts but give me an outline what you think the players need and again I will ask him, I am getting ready for another of my so called posts on the beta forums asking a few other things from Steve and I will be glad to add your opinion and request.

Do not stand alone crussdaddy it would help if you had some backing among the general public.

Bo


I'm not certain how to respond to this constructively. Did you read what I said, or did you attempt to absorb the meaning of the words by rubbing your head against the screen? Can you have a helper read it to you?

(in reply to bo)
Post #: 225
RE: Option 47 - 5/10/2015 4:50:00 PM   
bo

 

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

ORIGINAL: CrusssDaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: bo


quote:

ORIGINAL: CrusssDaddy

Nothing needs to be coded, just unlock for paying customers the same ability to flip/unflip units that is already provided to beta testers and that existed 20 years ago in CWiF. It's that simple. Steve refuses to budge on this because perfection is his "elusive goal" and he's terrified of receiving more bug reports, and those are absolutely horsesh** reasons to sit on something that would create an enormously positive qualitative change for many of the most involved players of this broken game. He refuses to indulge the most sane, helpful and courteous little gift to people who have paid the exorbitant fee and stuck with this mess the entire time, and no one that matters calls him out on it.

His behavior is despicable, and the community is cowardly. Maybe you deserve each other?




Crussdaddy, what exactly do you want Steve to do and I will personally ask him to do it if it is for the benefit of all players, I am sure he reads all the posts but give me an outline what you think the players need and again I will ask him, I am getting ready for another of my so called posts on the beta forums asking a few other things from Steve and I will be glad to add your opinion and request.

Do not stand alone crussdaddy it would help if you had some backing among the general public.

Bo


I'm not certain how to respond to this constructively. Did you read what I said, or did you attempt to absorb the meaning of the words by rubbing your head against the screen? Can you have a helper read it to you?



I do like I always do I rub my head against the screen hoping for some meaning to come out on posts I do not understand, I could use some helpers with this, gee maybe Steve could explain to me your concerns that is if you have purchased the game.

Bo

(in reply to CrusssDaddy)
Post #: 226
RE: Option 47 - 5/10/2015 6:47:31 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: CrusssDaddy

Nothing needs to be coded, just unlock for paying customers the same ability to flip/unflip units that is already provided to beta testers and that existed 20 years ago in CWiF. It's that simple. Steve refuses to budge on this because perfection is his "elusive goal" and he's terrified of receiving more bug reports, and those are absolutely horsesh** reasons to sit on something that would create an enormously positive qualitative change for many of the most involved players of this broken game. He refuses to indulge the most sane, helpful and courteous little gift to people who have paid the exorbitant fee and stuck with this mess the entire time, and no one that matters calls him out on it.

His behavior is despicable, and the community is cowardly. Maybe you deserve each other?

warspite1

Steve has given his reasons why he does not think adding such a tool is sensible. I for one have no idea whether the positives of such a tool outweigh the negatives, but am prepared to listen to, and accept, Steve's reasoning.

Maybe the fact is that "those that matter" - presumably you mean Matrix and possibly ADG - agree with his reasoning and thus do not "call him out on it".

Being a mass murderer is despicable, choosing not to release a de-bug tool for (what the programmer believes are good) reasons and that have been explained repeatedly is, if you sit on the opposite side of the argument to Steve, unwelcome, but hardly mean that his behaviour is "despicable". Get some sense of proportion for goodness sake.

"The community is cowardly". Maybe or - shock, horror - maybe the "community" simply agrees with Steve's view point that the addition of such a tool will create more problems than it will solve. In other words, being "cowardly" has nothing to do with it.

BTW, that was a despicable, cowardly and unpleasant response to bo - but so typical of you. Well done.


< Message edited by warspite1 -- 5/10/2015 7:48:19 PM >

_____________________________

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



(in reply to CrusssDaddy)
Post #: 227
RE: Option 47 - 5/11/2015 2:14:36 AM   
CrusssDaddy

 

Posts: 330
Joined: 8/6/2004
Status: offline 		What I mean by the people that matter is the active players within this community, who pi** and moan on this board and then offer no challenge when Steve pops in to explain why it's his way or the highway for his golden years hobbyist project that is being disingenuously marketed as a sales-worthy product for grown-ups. Matrix care? You must be kidding. ADG? If they think either of the division-scale or quick-play versions of tabletop WiF are a good idea, their very sanity is in question.

But after a decade and with the current state of affairs the result, isn't it time to review the default stance of, "Steve's got the benefit of all doubt?" Is there no outcome that causes you to engage with a more critical eye? It is absurd to believe that providing paying customers with the same debug tools provided the beta testers, or even just the unit flip/unflip toggle, would somehow damage the "development" of this game. Quite the contrary, it would substantively accelerate it by crowd-sourcing advancement to a new and motivated population perhaps energized by not being ignored for once. But that is not what Steve wants because he regards this as his private little train set in his basement, and no one tells him how to arrange the cars or the scenery. And it will continue that way unless the community mounts a challenge, which it appears too timid to do (led of course by your own shutters-closed example).

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 228
RE: Option 47 - 5/11/2015 4:01:44 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline 		From that comment you continue to believe - despite what has been said by myself and by bo and Centuur in particular, and on many occasions - that there has never been any discussion or heated debate with the "powers that be" over some aspects of the project.

Let me make quite clear: that is simply not the case and it completely baffles me that you and others continue to bleat out the same mantra - that the beta testers are all perfectly happy with the situation. Why? Why would we be? I have had AAR's that came to an end because of bugs, I have had games spoilt by bugs that - even if they did not end the game - their presence is a real downer. So why would you suggest I would be happy?

But at the end of the day, I and other beta testers do not have our money on the line here. The stakeholders - be it ADG or Matrix or Steve - they are the ones with cash and/or reputation on the line. It is THEIR show and we can only do so much.

If Steve and or Matrix walk away from this project that is it - THE.END, FINIS, goodnight Vienna. Is that what you want?

< Message edited by warspite1 -- 5/11/2015 6:53:11 AM >

_____________________________

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



(in reply to CrusssDaddy)
Post #: 229
RE: Option 47 - 5/11/2015 8:03:48 AM   
CrusssDaddy

 

Posts: 330
Joined: 8/6/2004
Status: offline 		The heat from your debates couldn't scorch a tissue and you exert more effort in defense of your half-hearted advocacy than in actually asserting yourself meaningfully against a broken process. The end of what? A debacle? Don't worry, if they split I'll send you CWiF and you can actually play through an entire game.

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 230
RE: Option 47 - 5/11/2015 8:24:30 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: CrusssDaddy

The heat from your debates couldn't scorch a tissue and you exert more effort in defense of your half-hearted advocacy than in actually asserting yourself meaningfully against a broken process. The end of what? A debacle? Don't worry, if they split I'll send you CWiF and you can actually play through an entire game.
warspite1

You are of course, right as ever on all counts. Did I ever tell you you're my hero?


_____________________________

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



(in reply to CrusssDaddy)
Post #: 231
RE: Option 47 - 5/11/2015 9:22:43 AM   
Orm


Posts: 22154
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline 		Right. This was enlightening and entertaining. Educational even.

Option 47 is very important to many and less important to others. And the first group want option 47 as soon as possible and the second group want it as soon as it is practical. So why getting nasty about it?

_____________________________

Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 232
RE: Option 47 - 5/11/2015 9:46:50 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

Right. This was enlightening and entertaining. Educational even.

Option 47 is very important to many and less important to others. And the first group want option 47 as soon as possible and the second group want it as soon as it is practical. So why getting nasty about it?
warspite1

Is that a rhetorical question?


_____________________________

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



(in reply to Orm)
Post #: 233
RE: Option 47 - 5/11/2015 3:30:22 PM   
bo

 

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

ORIGINAL: CrusssDaddy

The heat from your debates couldn't scorch a tissue and you exert more effort in defense of your half-hearted advocacy than in actually asserting yourself meaningfully against a broken process. The end of what? A debacle? Don't worry, if they split I'll send you CWiF and you can actually play through an entire game.


Now you did it cruss I respected you until you brought up CWIF, I happen to have that farce, ever hear of supply, I have since removed it from my computer as being a virus

Warspite mentioned internal battles of different opinions inside the beta section, I know you won't believe this but some got a little nasty or very testy whatever but Steve and Erik heard us loud and clear how we felt about the progress and the direction of the game.

But in the long run cruss it is their money and their reputation that is on the line not ours [well you seem to think is is ours] and their decisions are theirs alone, this will be on them as to what the general war game community will think of Matrix, Steve, and Erik in the future.

Bo

< Message edited by bo -- 5/11/2015 4:34:05 PM >

(in reply to CrusssDaddy)
Post #: 234
RE: Option 47 - 5/11/2015 3:42:53 PM   
CrusssDaddy

 

Posts: 330
Joined: 8/6/2004
Status: offline 		I don't care what Tom Brokaw says, I think you guys are the Greatest Generation.

(in reply to bo)
Post #: 235
RE: Option 47 - 5/11/2015 3:54:43 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline 		Thank-you sir! I think you are right.

And I don't care what Eminem says:

'Cause I'm Slim Shady, yes I'm the real Shady
All you other Slim Shadys are just imitating
So won't the real Slim Shady please stand up,
Please stand up, please stand up?

_____________________________

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



(in reply to CrusssDaddy)
Post #: 236
RE: Option 47 - 5/11/2015 7:24:39 PM   
bo

 

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

ORIGINAL: CrusssDaddy

I don't care what Tom Brokaw says, I think you guys are the Greatest Generation.


I don't care what Brokaw thinks the only thing he cares about is getting that liberal idiot back on as the lead liar at NBC.

Bo

(in reply to CrusssDaddy)
Post #: 237
RE: Option 47 - 5/11/2015 7:45:55 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline 		More to the point.... who the hell is Tom Brokaw?

_____________________________

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



(in reply to bo)
Post #: 238
RE: Option 47 - 5/11/2015 7:50:58 PM   
Orm


Posts: 22154
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline 		He is an American, of course.

_____________________________

Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 239
RE: Option 47 - 5/11/2015 7:58:16 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline 		Well yes but......

_____________________________

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



(in reply to Orm)
Post #: 240
Page:   <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> RE: Option 47 Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   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

1.922