How this project coming around? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames



Message

Rising-Sun -> How this project coming around? (11/28/2012 10:16:35 AM)

Look interesting, wasnt sure if this wargame is what i am looking for. Besure to have demo version so they can play it and see if they like it or not before wasting money that they are not happy with it.

Btw any ideas when this will be release?



Extraneous -> RE: How this project coming around? (11/28/2012 1:24:41 PM)

Let me direct you to October 1, 2012 Status Report for Matrix Games’ MWIF Forum



Rising-Sun -> RE: How this project coming around? (11/28/2012 5:30:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Extraneous

Let me direct you to October 1, 2012 Status Report for Matrix Games’ MWIF Forum


Thanks for input, doesnt they have teams or others to help out too?



bo -> RE: How this project coming around? (11/28/2012 5:49:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: RisingSun

Look interesting, wasnt sure if this wargame is what i am looking for. Besure to have demo version so they can play it and see if they like it or not before wasting money that they are not happy with it.

Btw any ideas when this will be release?


Hi RisingSun

That is one of Matrix's shortcomings there is never a demo or almost never, I have argued the point to no avail, Most other companies put out a demo so you could at least get a feel for the game. Their argument is that the the demo is not like the real game. At the risk of losing whatever little status I have here that is plain malarkey.

I believe that a demo gives you a feel for the game, graphics, interface, some rules etc. I have bought games from here sight unseen [carriers at war] [:@] and have been terribly disappointed.

One way is to ask Steve if you could become a beta tester and that would give you some idea of this truly great game. Steve has done a very creditable construction job of this game in my opinion. If you have beta tested before I am sure Steve can use some extra help, but that is up to him as the beta testing newcomers are closed right now or so I think.

Bo




Anendrue -> RE: How this project coming around? (11/28/2012 6:15:07 PM)

No face lost here Bo. I too disagree with the demo shortcomings of Matrix. However, the rules are extensively intertwined. So there is no way to release a demo subset without crippling the ability to play the game. (Yes I will get back to work on the site Bo. [;)] )

RisingSun I suggest you download the rules from ADG's website to see what the game is about. Also look through the forums here. There is a lot of information available to give you a feel for the game.



Rising-Sun -> RE: How this project coming around? (11/28/2012 8:07:21 PM)

Cool thank guys, i also noticed there a board game "Down in Flame" and never played it before. Only boardgame i played is Axis and Allies and Pacific War. Just got War in the Pacific 2nd off ebay.

I can also check youtube on gameplay and see how it played out as well. Looking forward for this to come out soon :)



paulderynck -> RE: How this project coming around? (11/29/2012 3:16:00 AM)

If you scout around on this forum you'll find several After Action Reports with many screen shots, which is the next best thing to a demo.

Come to think of it, actually, they are better. If you get a demo, you still have to learn how to use the interfaces and play the game. With the AARs, you can see what the game is capable of delivering.



Rising-Sun -> RE: How this project coming around? (11/29/2012 9:14:35 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

If you scout around on this forum you'll find several After Action Reports with many screen shots, which is the next best thing to a demo.

Come to think of it, actually, they are better. If you get a demo, you still have to learn how to use the interfaces and play the game. With the AARs, you can see what the game is capable of delivering.


Will do Paul :)



composer99 -> RE: How this project coming around? (11/30/2012 3:53:14 AM)

Speaking of YouTube, I just checked and it appears this video is the only YouTube video up about WiF, and it is a minor part of the video at that.



Rising-Sun -> RE: How this project coming around? (11/30/2012 8:36:40 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: composer99

Speaking of YouTube, I just checked and it appears this video is the only YouTube video up about WiF, and it is a minor part of the video at that.


Interesting video, i still have this huge map on the wall (4 ft by 6ft) for Pacific Campaign. It came with War in the Pacific 2nd (DG) and trying to redo the combat rules, the rules in the game was lame and too simply. I manage to work something out for naval engagements and havent figured out the air and land actions yet.

I played War in the Pacific: Admiral Editon and didnt like it. The air combats seem to be okay, but the naval engagements should have kept it to 3D actions into realistic formation while moving and shooting each others. Guess Gary never find anyone willing to add 3D supports into the game, he had "Warships" back in late 80s and that is what i am trying to add in the game here.

Also noticed this game "World in Flames" will be based on counters and hexes. So it wouldnt have much actions on what the naval or any other combats will really look like in reality. I manage to mod Pacific Storm: Allies and did what i could to make it more realistic, but the rest was hardcoded and couldnt be fixed.

I am still looking forward to try this game out when it release.
Rising



paulderynck -> RE: How this project coming around? (11/30/2012 5:38:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: RisingSun

Also noticed this game "World in Flames" will be based on counters and hexes. So it wouldnt have much actions on what the naval or any other combats will really look like in reality. I manage to mod Pacific Storm: Allies and did what i could to make it more realistic, but the rest was hardcoded and couldnt be fixed.

I am still looking forward to try this game out when it release.
Rising

That's good. The whole naval combat system in WiF/MWiF is a game within a game. You're right about no 3D and no tactical formations, but the way naval surprise works, it makes the naval combat system one of the most exciting, annoying, agonizing and rejoiceful wargaming experiences you'll ever find.



composer99 -> RE: How this project coming around? (11/30/2012 9:59:44 PM)

RisingSun:

I suspect the degree of resolution/granularity you desire is too detailed for a strategic/operations-level wargame such as WiF.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: How this project coming around? (12/1/2012 2:28:22 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: RisingSun


quote:

ORIGINAL: composer99

Speaking of YouTube, I just checked and it appears this video is the only YouTube video up about WiF, and it is a minor part of the video at that.


Interesting video, i still have this huge map on the wall (4 ft by 6ft) for Pacific Campaign. It came with War in the Pacific 2nd (DG) and trying to redo the combat rules, the rules in the game was lame and too simply. I manage to work something out for naval engagements and havent figured out the air and land actions yet.

I played War in the Pacific: Admiral Editon and didnt like it. The air combats seem to be okay, but the naval engagements should have kept it to 3D actions into realistic formation while moving and shooting each others. Guess Gary never find anyone willing to add 3D supports into the game, he had "Warships" back in late 80s and that is what i am trying to add in the game here.

Also noticed this game "World in Flames" will be based on counters and hexes. So it wouldnt have much actions on what the naval or any other combats will really look like in reality. I manage to mod Pacific Storm: Allies and did what i could to make it more realistic, but the rest was hardcoded and couldnt be fixed.

I am still looking forward to try this game out when it release.
Rising

I have always found that the biggest problem with naval combat simulations is that the overwhelming majority of the time, ships did nothing but float around on a vast sea. Even in the age of Napoleonics, 'seeing' an enemy ship at sea could be followed by days of 'chase' where one ship (or more) chased after an inferior enemy ship trying to force it to engage in combat. Simulating "nothing happening" is extremely boring from a player's perspective. The actual combats themselves are usually over very quickly, in a matter of hours, if not minutes.

For that reason tactical naval combat simulations can be quite good. But operational and strategic naval warfare is more realistically simulated in the abstract. That is how WIF handles it. Players can decide on air/surface/submarine combat (mostly dependent on whether they 'won' the surprise initiative); they get to select targets that receive 'hits' (usually just for their own naval units); and they can decide whether to stay or abort from an engagement after each 'round', but the tactical nuances of combat are lost.



Neilster -> RE: How this project coming around? (12/6/2012 11:29:33 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: RisingSun


quote:

ORIGINAL: composer99

Speaking of YouTube, I just checked and it appears this video is the only YouTube video up about WiF, and it is a minor part of the video at that.


Interesting video, i still have this huge map on the wall (4 ft by 6ft) for Pacific Campaign. It came with War in the Pacific 2nd (DG) and trying to redo the combat rules, the rules in the game was lame and too simply. I manage to work something out for naval engagements and havent figured out the air and land actions yet.

I played War in the Pacific: Admiral Editon and didnt like it. The air combats seem to be okay, but the naval engagements should have kept it to 3D actions into realistic formation while moving and shooting each others. Guess Gary never find anyone willing to add 3D supports into the game, he had "Warships" back in late 80s and that is what i am trying to add in the game here.

Also noticed this game "World in Flames" will be based on counters and hexes. So it wouldnt have much actions on what the naval or any other combats will really look like in reality. I manage to mod Pacific Storm: Allies and did what i could to make it more realistic, but the rest was hardcoded and couldnt be fixed.

I am still looking forward to try this game out when it release.
Rising


Hi RisingSun. Once you read the rules and tutorials to get a feel for the number of individual aircraft, ships etc that each counter represents and the flow of the game, I think you'll find your imagination can "fill in the action" during combat.

I can remember a game of WiF where the Italians and Afrika Korps looked like they were going to capture the Suez canal. The Commonwealth put a powerful task force together with 2 corps of infantry in transports and there followed an epic naval battle across the whole Mediterranean between it and the Italian navy. It was really exciting. Both sides suffered horrific losses and aborts but the transports limped in to port. It didn't help though. A couple of bad rolls and Rommel was kicking back on a balcony in Cairo with an icy cold gin and tonic [;)]

This is simply the best strategic WW2 game and the game system has been fine tuned over many years. The boardgame is fun enough but MWiF will take care of all the bookkeeping and rule checking, which will improve the gaming experience considerably.

Just be aware that there won't be an AI in the first release. There will be heaps of humans of all standards online keen for a game though. An AI would have been handy to learn against but the WiF community has lots of altruistic people who would like to help beginners. I'm also going to study the tutorials and videos thoroughly because it's been a while since I've played and that was a previous version.

Cheers, Neilster



JonBrave -> RE: How this project coming around? (12/11/2012 8:41:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Neilster
Just be aware that there won't be an AI in the first release.


The Developer has stated explicitly in many posts that there will be an AI, from the start. So what makes you assert this?



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: How this project coming around? (12/11/2012 9:58:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JonBrave


quote:

ORIGINAL: Neilster
Just be aware that there won't be an AI in the first release.


The Developer has stated explicitly in many posts that there will be an AI, from the start. So what makes you assert this?

You are both correct.[:)] There will be an AI Opponent, but the first release of MWIF will be limited to 3 modes of play: Solitaire (1 player playing both sides), Head-to-head, and NetPlay. Completing the other 2 modes of play, AIO and PBEM, will be my next task following the initial release.



Joseignacio -> RE: How this project coming around? (12/12/2012 8:14:16 AM)

Thanks very much for clearing this matter.



Anendrue -> RE: How this project coming around? (12/12/2012 1:04:10 PM)

I was asked the other day where we are at in the development cycle for World in Flames and the differences in beta and alpha testing.  While I can not respond to the first part (NDA), I thought this might help some who confuse the name beta team with the software (or waterfall) development cycle.  These stages are loosely defined and differ from developer to developer and company to company.  Some of these definitions are from the web and some from old textbooks.  But hopefully you can decide where you feel World in Flames development process is at.

• CTP (Community Technology Preview): Very much like “Show and Tell”. Features are present to varying degrees and customer can get an idea of where the release is going
• ALPHA: Primary features are mostly implemented but some non critical features may still be awaiting implementation. There are definitely rough spots needing to be worked out. Quality is moderate and bugs are still easily found.
• Beta: Features are mostly implemented but still have rough edges. Quality is fair at this point.
• RC (Release Candidate): Product seems ready to ship. This is the last chance for feedback and attempts at finding major issues that could block release.
• RTM (Release to Manufacturing): Product is complete and ready to be shipped to customers. This is also known as going gold with some companies.

Generally speaking the higher the software version number, the higher the quality although some companies may use different versioning for releases or stages.

Using Microsoft Windows as an example. Information from MSDN (Microsoft*)

Ver. Operating system
6.2 - Windows 8
6.1 - Windows 7
6.0 - Windows Vista
5.2 - Windows XP 64-Bit Edition
5.1 - Windows XP
5.0 - Windows 2000

*edit for spelling



gw15 -> RE: How this project coming around? (12/12/2012 8:02:23 PM)

So....Shannon, using abj's development cycle where is MWIF? (if you respond "Vista", I will be nervous)



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: How this project coming around? (12/13/2012 3:13:17 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: abj9562

I was asked the other day where we are at in the development cycle for World in Flames and the differences in beta and alpha testing.  While I can not respond to the first part (NDA), I thought this might help some who confuse the name beta team with the software (or waterfall) development cycle.  These stages are loosely defined and differ from developer to developer and company to company.  Some of these definitions are from the web and some from old textbooks.  But hopefully you can decide where you feel World in Flames development process is at.

• CTP (Community Technology Preview): Very much like “Show and Tell”. Features are present to varying degrees and customer can get an idea of where the release is going
• ALPHA: Primary features are mostly implemented but some non critical features may still be awaiting implementation. There are definitely rough spots needing to be worked out. Quality is moderate and bugs are still easily found.
• Beta: Features are mostly implemented but still have rough edges. Quality is fair at this point.
• RC (Release Candidate): Product seems ready to ship. This is the last chance for feedback and attempts at finding major issues that could block release.
• RTM (Release to Manufacturing): Product is complete and ready to be shipped to customers. This is also known as going gold with some companies.

Generally speaking the higher the software version number, the higher the quality although some companies may use different versioning for releases or stages.

Using Microsoft Windows as an example. Information from MSDN (Microsoft*)

Ver. Operating system6.2 - Windows 8
6.1 - Windows 7
6.0 - Windows Vista
5.2 - Windows XP 64-Bit Edition
5.1 - Windows XP
5.0 - Windows 2000

*edit for spelling

The definition of Alpha and Beta, et al are appropriate for smaller projects.

With the massive size of MWIF, I brought the beta testers in very early (after the graphics and primary functionality were coded). That was so testing could begin on the features that were coded and alpha tested (by me). But at that point there were other features where the coding had not even been started. Indeed, there were some undefined design elements for at least a dozen or so features. To have waited until everything had been coded for beta testing would have dumped a ton of stuff on the beta testers all at once. Even worse, I would have been coding 'blind' with no feedback on the graphics, player interface, forms, etc.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: How this project coming around? (12/13/2012 3:14:21 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bommerrang

So....Shannon, using abj's development cycle where is MWIF? (if you respond "Vista", I will be nervous)

The program currently runs under Windows XP, Vista, and Win 7.



gw15 -> RE: How this project coming around? (12/13/2012 2:20:33 PM)

Well, I was joking about the Vista part. I really meant his bold face product development steps. Is MWIF still Beta or is it maybe Alpha?



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: How this project coming around? (12/13/2012 6:26:23 PM)

Everything for the first release is in beta testing.

There are some (~10) optional rules that are partially alpha, partially beta, which will be provided to purchasers of the initial release as 'patches' (i.e., at no additional cost). There are also a few training videos that I need to record - so they haven't even reached the alpha stage yet. But the vast majority of the game is ready for production (having passed through beta testing): tutorials, players manual, and the rules as coded (RAC) document.

I am working on bugs with the one big area that is still in beta testing being NetPlay. For that the beta testers are waiting on me to fix the bugs they have already identified (which stop the game dead in its tracks) so they can do more testing. In particular, the end-of-turn phases need extensive testing and some of the more complex combat resolutions (air, naval, and land).

It's a lot like repairing a very long road after the winter storms.[:(]



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: How this project coming around? (12/13/2012 7:24:53 PM)

I thought I would give you a look-see at the kinds of bugs I still need to fix. There are 5 air mission bugs on my task list. I worked on one concerning damaging oil resources (printed on the map) yesterday and I should be able to finish with that this morning. Here are the other 4 air mission bugs remaining. By the way, besides the 8 air missions in the game, I also throw air rebase into this mix when I am sorting new bug reports into my task list.

My debugging 'style' is to first fix any bug that is easy to correct (e.g., spelling and cosmetic bugs), then to work on a group of bugs that relate to the same section of code (e.g., land moves, land combats, naval moves, naval combat, partisans, conquest, etc.). I try to correct all the bugs in a section/phase if I can do so without getting bogged down. When faced with dozens of bugs in a section/phase, I'll make a good faith attempt to clear a lot of them, but typically leave the more difficult ones for later.

My goal here is to keep making progress, rather than spend a week on just a couple of bugs. I've found that if I ignore a bug for a while, I sometimes have a better idea of how to fix it later. In fact, oftentimes the beta testers will reproduce the bug under different circumstances which will give me a better understanding of what is wrong and how to remedy the situation.

What you see below are 4 of the more difficult bugs to fix, since they require additional code to perform something new (not previously coded).

[image]local://upfiles/16701/64C77E2C73044C61968FADE3F499A679.jpg[/image]



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.046875