Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

quote:

ORIGINAL: juntoalmar
Well, actually, software development is a complicated issue.

For the record, I never said that software development isn't complicated--of course it is.

What isn't complicated is the decision to release a beta product as if it were a final product. And while it might be "complicated" to determine what is a beta product, this is Matrix's business after all--they've released how many dozens of games over the last few years? Sorry, but I think they should have figured that part of the business out by now. And I hate to keep repeating this, but they had an very similar experience with EiA but apparently didn't learn any lessons. And I was less than satisfied with WitE upon its release as well. And while they did a commendable job patching and repatching WitE as well as possible, the same can't be said about EiA (which I had hoped to buy but ultimately did not based on the poor reviews).

To be clear, this is not a frothing rant against Matrix--I bought dozens of their games over the years, and am sure that I'll buy more, but at this point I tend to wait a few months after release to get a better understanding from the state of the game from the forums before buying.

quote:

But as a counter argument what if Matrix did NOT know that so many issues would come up after release. I'm sure the beta's and Steve had a bug list and if Steve and Matrix felt the amount of KNOWN bugs was acceptable (i.e. they have released games before with X% of bugs) and that they could be fixed within a month or two post release.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NielsJuel
I think it is not fair to pay premium price for half-baked games, when instead if I wait I can get games that hopefully are in better condition and perhaps even at a lower price.
It should be the other way around.

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian
I have a wonderful war-game that is quite simple and intuitive but has very high re-playability and good historical feel coming through the simplicity. Lots and lots of dice rolling too.

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

I used to love Squad Leader. I would never ever want to play it on a computer though. Computers should be used to erase playability compromises like IGoYouGo, not go back to the past. I would like to play certain Cross of Iron scenarios with simultaneous blind movement and a real simulation of company/battalion commander command&control capabilities, possibly in Real Time. Wait, you mean enemy tanks don't stop and wait for their "turn" ?

The battle in the movie "We Were Soldiers" is a much better example of what combat command is is probably like than a Squad Leader scenario is. Would make a great war-game on a computer.

I would also like to play an American Civil War game where your orders reach the left wing at the speed of a dispatch rider and your map of the battle is a hand-drawn Engineer topo plus random local intelligence and what you can see through the smoke with your own eyes.


Option 47 does seem rather Hollywood-esque now that I think about it. We may have been out of supply behind enemy lines for over an hour now, but thank God we didn't run out of hair conditioner.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur

I'm saying you this: the decision to release the game was made by Matrix.

And by saying this, I've said almost too much already...

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian
I have a wonderful war-game that is quite simple and intuitive but has very high re-playability and good historical feel coming through the simplicity. Lots and lots of dice rolling too.

Gee, sounds like ASL, hahaha.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958
So, let me pose another question to the folks here in general. (1) Is it better to have MWiF in the state it's in and under continued development by Steve or (2) Not have MWiF?

Personally I think (1) is the better option (condition) because I think Matrix would be much more likely to pull the plug on MWiF in case (2) versus (1). This is, unless we all abandon MWiF.

Another question, is it better to have an "imperfect", but evolving MWiF or an abandoned (or no) MWiF?

quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur

I'm saying you this: the decision to release the game was made by Matrix.

And by saying this, I've said almost too much already...

O.K., reading between the lines then I surmise that Steve was not ready to release but was forced to by Matrix?

I know, you're under an NDA that prevents you from either confirming or denying this.

So, let me pose another question to the folks here in general. (1) Is it better to have MWiF in the state it's in and under continued development by Steve or (2) Not have MWiF?

Personally I think (1) is the better option (condition) because I think Matrix would be much more likely to pull the plug on MWiF in case (2) versus (1). This is, unless we all abandon MWiF.

Another question, is it better to have an "imperfect", but evolving MWiF or an abandoned (or no) MWiF?

quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian
I have a wonderful war-game that is quite simple and intuitive but has very high re-playability and good historical feel coming through the simplicity. Lots and lots of dice rolling too.

Gee, sounds like ASL, hahaha.

It's got to be RISK.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bo

quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur

I'm saying you this: the decision to release the game was made by Matrix.

And by saying this, I've said almost too much already...

O.K., reading between the lines then I surmise that Steve was not ready to release but was forced to by Matrix?

I know, you're under an NDA that prevents you from either confirming or denying this.

So, let me pose another question to the folks here in general. (1) Is it better to have MWiF in the state it's in and under continued development by Steve or (2) Not have MWiF?

Personally I think (1) is the better option (condition) because I think Matrix would be much more likely to pull the plug on MWiF in case (2) versus (1). This is, unless we all abandon MWiF.

Another question, is it better to have an "imperfect", but evolving MWiF or an abandoned (or no) MWiF?

Reading between the lines rkr I believe that neither Steve or Matrix had a choice about the release of MWIF. Now contemplate that for awhile. Need any more clues?

I think at this point some of the beta testers could care less about the NDA and with that said I cant deny or confirm because I just don't know at this point in time, above our pay grades.

Up to the next question you have been pretty good with your posts, found this question a little strange, of course it is better for Steve to go on as the next choice is doomsville.

I have no idea whether Matrix will pull the plug or not, I do feel that if this was costing them funds out of their pocket this Matrix MWIF game forum would be long gone.

The last question I will leave alone as I cannot think of an answer to give you. Are you feeling all right rkr? Or are you just testing us.

Bo

quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

quote:

ORIGINAL: bo

quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur

I'm saying you this: the decision to release the game was made by Matrix.

And by saying this, I've said almost too much already...

O.K., reading between the lines then I surmise that Steve was not ready to release but was forced to by Matrix?

I know, you're under an NDA that prevents you from either confirming or denying this.

So, let me pose another question to the folks here in general. (1) Is it better to have MWiF in the state it's in and under continued development by Steve or (2) Not have MWiF?

Personally I think (1) is the better option (condition) because I think Matrix would be much more likely to pull the plug on MWiF in case (2) versus (1). This is, unless we all abandon MWiF.

Another question, is it better to have an "imperfect", but evolving MWiF or an abandoned (or no) MWiF?

Reading between the lines rkr I believe that neither Steve or Matrix had a choice about the release of MWIF. Now contemplate that for awhile. Need any more clues?

I think at this point some of the beta testers could care less about the NDA and with that said I cant deny or confirm because I just don't know at this point in time, above our pay grades.

Up to the next question you have been pretty good with your posts, found this question a little strange, of course it is better for Steve to go on as the next choice is doomsville.

I have no idea whether Matrix will pull the plug or not, I do feel that if this was costing them funds out of their pocket this Matrix MWIF game forum would be long gone.

The last question I will leave alone as I cannot think of an answer to give you. Are you feeling all right rkr? Or are you just testing us.

Bo

I haven't had my daily fix of MWiF ... I'll be alright in a few minutes though.


Seriously though, I'd never heard of WiF, or MWiF, until about 6 or so years ago. Honestly, I thought the game was a bit out of my reach in terms of complexity and scope. And as far as WiF was concerned, physical space. Then a little over a year ago, on impulse I bought MWiF and have not regretted one bit. I'm having a blast. What saddens me, is the thought of MWiF and this forum going away. I don't mean literally, but becoming dead ... an abandoned game and a ghost forum.

My perspective is that I'm new to (M)WiF and only been learning / playing it since February 2014. I know this project has been in the works for more than a decade. That's a long time in the computer world, both software and hardware wise. I also can understand that folks who are experts on and play the cardboard and paper version of MWiF, expect MWiF to faithfully match that experience to within reasonable bounds. Not having that experience, I'm blissfully ignorant of when "key" rules are present or not enforced properly. When playing, I just accept how the game operates is how I'm suppose to play it.

Also, I'm not a beta tester and therefore privy to information the rest of you have. Or, do I see the behind the scenes politics and disagreements that you do. I'm just excited about MWiF and want to it, and this forum, to be vibrant a decade from now. Heck, two decades from now. I'm being selfish, but I don't want to lose either. That's where I'm coming from.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur

I'm saying you this: the decision to release the game was made by Matrix.

And by saying this, I've said almost too much already...

O.K., reading between the lines then I surmise that Steve was not ready to release but was forced to by Matrix?

I know, you're under an NDA that prevents you from either confirming or denying this.

So, let me pose another question to the folks here in general. (1) Is it better to have MWiF in the state it's in and under continued development by Steve or (2) Not have MWiF?

Personally I think (1) is the better option (condition) because I think Matrix would be much more likely to pull the plug on MWiF in case (2) versus (1). This is, unless we all abandon MWiF.

Another question, is it better to have an "imperfect", but evolving MWiF or an abandoned (or no) MWiF?

quote:

ORIGINAL: WarHunter

Problem with real time games. Its not enough that your mind is fast enough to figure out what you want to do.
Its how fast your hand and fingers are as you think. Mouse monkey games are great for younger gamers.
Not so much as your body ages.
Playability and Realism is the tightrope to negotiate.

For the young and older gamer. Chess is Igoygo. Still a popular turn based game.
http://www.fide.com/component/content/article/1-fide-news/6376-agon-releases-new-chess-player-statistics-from-yougov.html
Wargames created in the classic igoygo play style is an acceptable way to play. Even for a computer game.

That American Civil War game you want is here. At least its pretty darn close to your description.
Scourge of War
http://www.scourgeofwar.com/index.shtml

Here's to more Turn-based games

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

Hi Bo,

I don't think there is a free speech issue on the forum. Look at my silly little situation.

I was playing the game, happily spelunking along, and tsk-tsking some supply issues across the lake to Libya. Then I saw some units that should have stayed disorganized, instead do a magical dance and became re-organized. Shocked, I reported it as a bug.

This my readers, is where my sad tale begins. I report surrounded units being re-organized, and I found out that units being allowed to spontaneously re-organize was an optional rule! In fact, it was called Optional Rule #47. Hastily I scrambled to a-d-g.com.au and searched the official PDF. Agonized, I fell back into my chair, shuddering inside. What had they done? Do they really think surrounded units should re-organized? I hastily check isolated oil dependent units in-game, and they do retain disorganization status! I wailed a good bit on the bug report forums in wrath, and anger of ruined games. Hours lost, unable to be regained. Pleaded and raged for a tool to allow me to continue my games. But, from high above, silence.

Never once was one of my threads closed.

Here I have a open thread regarding how un-realistic this game is without optional 47, and it has not been closed. I think that the reason is that, first, there is a legitimate concern regarding the rule itself. I agree with many others that an isolated unit should be allowed to be destroyed by the owner, but that mechanic is absent from the actual RAW of WIF. I've never had Guderian or Zhukov trapped, and whenever I've completed such a move, I always end the suffering sooner than later. I prefer the coup-de-grace, and not try to make my opponent suffer; not to mention it very often relieves logistical issues.

My point being that the thread still lives, not because I insist on insulting people, but actually I post logical arguments in my own favor. Those thoughts are argumented on, discussed, and generally considered fairly or unfairly. While the topic isn't generally favorable, there remains an element of possibility that the issue could be resolved.

Many, many, alternatives have been offered for the rule, but it cannot be played around. Particularly in Siberia and China. The tool to fix the problem denied to all but beta-testers (4).

My opponent and I were tackling the Asian map with complex strategies regarding control, supply, and logistics. Both of us moved unsupplied units even further out of supply to capture objective areas. In military terms this is known as exploitation, because typically most opponents will not even have speed-bumps behind their front line. Taking supply sources, victory cites, isolating enemy units are the primary reasons for moving out-of-supply units, and disorganizing them.

Overall I've not determined whether the change in map scale makes the asian map untenable, or still playable. However, due to the lack of units in the overall theatre, supply becomes extremely important, and units tracing supply over enemy hexes is not allowed. I wouild like to make my own conclusions whether the unification of the map scale breaks the game, or whether it is still viable.

Just for those who don't know, a very often used strategy is for the USSR to declare war on Japan as soon as possible in the full 1939 campaign. Why? They get their reserve units (non-GE) and even more important, they are no longer neutral. They can call any action, where for them, the Land action is extremely powerful.

An attack on Japan in 1940 with the USSR could see the Japanese unseated in Manchuria, Korea, and China perhaps. With no rule implemented regarding peace, other than a gentleman's agreement, means the Germans have to rescue the Japanese in 1941 with Barbarossa.

With the new map scale, what is the result of max pressure on Japan early game? I still don't know. Does it break WIF? Don't know. You see, to answer said questions, supply has to work properly. To me, Rule #47 has never been optional, it can be exploited in multiple ways that are unquestioningly un-realistic. why it's an optional is a source of continual wonderment for me.

But my thread on my wonderment over option #47 isn't closed. Consider that, and why it would be.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrusssDaddy

In my experience, usually on the Asia map this involves bypassed ChiComm units trying to trace to Urumqi or Kashgar or far south, potentially dozens of hexes in any case. As a house rule, we would look suspiciously at giant supply lines that snaked through desert, mountains, etc. endlessly to establish supply improbably far, far away: when flipped, those guys would stay flipped until relived from the outside. This also alleviated littering the map with control markers.

Maybe as a compromise that retains the spirit of the rule without taking ages to compute, the computer could cut off its supply search after 15 or 20 hexes? That seems a reasonable distance to preserve some need to truly pocket bypassed forces.

Otherwise, it's inconceivable playing without 47.

That is my intended solution. However it remains on my task list as a not 'super' high priority.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrusssDaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrusssDaddy

In my experience, usually on the Asia map this involves bypassed ChiComm units trying to trace to Urumqi or Kashgar or far south, potentially dozens of hexes in any case. As a house rule, we would look suspiciously at giant supply lines that snaked through desert, mountains, etc. endlessly to establish supply improbably far, far away: when flipped, those guys would stay flipped until relived from the outside. This also alleviated littering the map with control markers.

Maybe as a compromise that retains the spirit of the rule without taking ages to compute, the computer could cut off its supply search after 15 or 20 hexes? That seems a reasonable distance to preserve some need to truly pocket bypassed forces.

Otherwise, it's inconceivable playing without 47.

That is my intended solution. However it remains on my task list as a not 'super' high priority.

It's a year later from the above post. If you look a the dozen posts before it, near unanimous agreement from paying customers and betas that this should be a priority. Any progress?