Mutual Peace? Japan and USSR (Full Version)

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



Message

dplummer -> Mutual Peace? Japan and USSR (3/3/2014 1:51:22 AM)

So first time with an early Japanese - USSR war. Japan took Vlad and USSR lost Zhukov in Persia to a lucky suicide attack. Left with only one HQ
USSR would benefit from peace. My understanding is during Peace step something should present an option for mutual peace between the two but that
doesn't seem to happen. Am I mistaken and should expect something else?

Thanks.



Ur_Vile_WEdge -> RE: Mutual Peace? Japan and USSR (3/3/2014 3:03:50 AM)

From what I understand, the option is broken. I'm not sure if you can sign mutual peaces at all, to be honest.



paulderynck -> RE: Mutual Peace? Japan and USSR (3/3/2014 4:22:41 AM)

That option is not broken, it is not yet implemented in the code.



joshuamnave -> RE: Mutual Peace? Japan and USSR (3/3/2014 7:14:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

That option is not broken, it is not yet implemented in the code.


I'm holding in my hand a beautiful hardbound book. This book was part of the justification for the premium price tag of this game, and it's nice to look at. I've been told again and again that I can't play the game without the book, or that I wouldn't want to. The book says on its cover "THE RULE AS CODED". It does not say "The rules as we wish they were coded" or "the rules as they might someday be coded" or "the rules, some of which are coded and some of which are not yet implemented."

According to "The Rules As coded" there is a mutual peace step. And yet there is not. Quit being such an apologist - it is broken. I too look forward to the day when all the rules have been coded. That day should have been before the game was released, but that horse has left the barn. I agree that making the game, even in an incomplete state, playable takes precedence at this point, but that's just the best of a set of bad options. In the meantime, you do yourself no great service by being so dismissive to entirely reasonable comments.



Mike Parker -> RE: Mutual Peace? Japan and USSR (3/3/2014 8:09:21 PM)

Have to agree with Zartacla here and normally I am one to go the other way on such things with MWIF. This is a broken feature of the game. Its not just unimplimented code its somethign that is documented as coded and its not. It is a minor issue, but in some games I think it could be a very major concern... i.e. when war breaks out there.

I'm not about to beat my chest and rend my clothes and pour ashes on my head but it is broken, any other interpretation is just erroneous.



warspite1 -> RE: Mutual Peace? Japan and USSR (3/3/2014 8:19:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Parker

Have to agree with Zartacla here and normally I am one to go the other way on such things with MWIF. This is a broken feature of the game. Its not just unimplimented code its somethign that is documented as coded and its not. It is a minor issue, but in some games I think it could be a very major concern... i.e. when war breaks out there.

I'm not about to beat my chest and rend my clothes and pour ashes on my head but it is broken, any other interpretation is just erroneous.
warspite1

Gents, to be fair to Paulderynck I do not think he was trying to split hairs or be clever over language.

My take on it is that it is important we use the right terminology given the mess that things are in at the moment. Broken suggests its been coded and doesn't work, whereas uncoded is just that.

Just my 2 cents - we are all on the same side here. Frustrated, annoyed and desperate for the game to work.



dplummer -> RE: Mutual Peace? Japan and USSR (3/3/2014 8:33:22 PM)

I'm aware option 50 isn't yet implemented, just checking on the peace step in general (RAC 13.7) and the mutual peace step in particular (RAC 13.7.3) and 7.4.22 in manual 1.

Seems I'm reading it correctly (should be able to have a mutually declared peace between majors or major - minor) and while the compulsory USSR - Japan option doesn't exist the choice should.

In this case it may well stop the game (its early at least) as it seems the Japanese response to a USSR invasion of Persia should likely be a quick capture of Vlad. But if it can't be a limited war then it is a very different choice.

Until changed I may play with my own house rule (wonders of solitaire) of no USSR taking Persia and no Japan limited war. Sets the Chinese up for a problem though.

Thanks.



paulderynck -> RE: Mutual Peace? Japan and USSR (3/3/2014 9:19:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zartacla


quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

That option is not broken, it is not yet implemented in the code.


I'm holding in my hand a beautiful hardbound book. This book was part of the justification for the premium price tag of this game, and it's nice to look at. I've been told again and again that I can't play the game without the book, or that I wouldn't want to. The book says on its cover "THE RULE AS CODED". It does not say "The rules as we wish they were coded" or "the rules as they might someday be coded" or "the rules, some of which are coded and some of which are not yet implemented."

According to "The Rules As coded" there is a mutual peace step. And yet there is not. Quit being such an apologist - it is broken. I too look forward to the day when all the rules have been coded. That day should have been before the game was released, but that horse has left the barn. I agree that making the game, even in an incomplete state, playable takes precedence at this point, but that's just the best of a set of bad options. In the meantime, you do yourself no great service by being so dismissive to entirely reasonable comments.

What the F do you want me to say? RTFM? It was a simple statement of a fact, not an apology. It's on page 4 of Volume 1 of the Players Manual. Quit being so vacuous and insulting.

[image]local://upfiles/24497/12E64CDF92584A98A78DE93B421DBF83.jpg[/image]



paulderynck -> RE: Mutual Peace? Japan and USSR (3/3/2014 9:28:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dplummer

I'm aware option 50 isn't yet implemented, just checking on the peace step in general (RAC 13.7) and the mutual peace step in particular (RAC 13.7.3) and 7.4.22 in manual 1.

Seems I'm reading it correctly (should be able to have a mutually declared peace between majors or major - minor) and while the compulsory USSR - Japan option doesn't exist the choice should.

In this case it may well stop the game (its early at least) as it seems the Japanese response to a USSR invasion of Persia should likely be a quick capture of Vlad. But if it can't be a limited war then it is a very different choice.

Until changed I may play with my own house rule (wonders of solitaire) of no USSR taking Persia and no Japan limited war. Sets the Chinese up for a problem though.

Thanks.

Here's what RAW7 says about Mutual Peace:
quote:


Two major powers at war can agree to come to peace on any terms mutually acceptable (except for transferring units). Both the nationalist and communist Chinese must agree before China can come to peace. A neutrality pact is then in place between the parties.
Players can also agree to reach a peace between a major power and a minor country. In that case, they return to their pre-war borders (exception: see Soviet border rectification 19.6).

Tell you what - you produce a flowchart that covers "any terms mutually acceptable" in its complete entirety, and I'll do the coding for Steve.



joshuamnave -> RE: Mutual Peace? Japan and USSR (3/3/2014 9:31:26 PM)

I'm being vacuous and insulting? You pompous, condescending, jerk... It's not bad enough that people are frustrated by a 4 month old game still plagued with bugs, or with patches that break the game and go unfixed for a week at a time, you have to come and be condescending toward anyone that dares hint that the game isn't perfect or imply that it's our fault for not being more helpful in fixing it?

And by the way, he wasn't asking about optional rule 50, nimrod. He was talking about NON OPTIONAL RULE 13.7.3 which is in the RULES AS CODED on p. 113

RTFM yourself.




paulderynck -> RE: Mutual Peace? Japan and USSR (3/3/2014 9:32:22 PM)

See above yours.



Dabrion -> RE: Mutual Peace? Japan and USSR (3/3/2014 9:32:58 PM)

Paul prolly just wanted to be informative. Yet, Zartacla didn't want to be clever about language either, he just used one of the words to describe the effect of: feature not working as advertised.

I wish the time spent on the books would have gone into implementation and testing; would have saved a small portion of the embarrassment for $litherine..



joshuamnave -> RE: Mutual Peace? Japan and USSR (3/3/2014 9:34:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck
Tell you what - you produce a flowchart that covers "any terms mutually acceptable" in its complete entirety, and I'll do the coding for Steve.



Geee that was helpful and not at all vacuous or insulting.

We didn't write the rule book. We didn't publish the rulebook. We didn't sell the rulebook. If it was a divergence, it should have been listed as one. But that's not what you said above... you said it just wasn't implemented yet. Are you saying now that it's not going to be implemented at all? When you settle on an excuse, let us know which one you want us to pick apart.



dplummer -> RE: Mutual Peace? Japan and USSR (3/3/2014 11:00:18 PM)

Wasn't hoping to start a flame war, just wanted to make sure I understood how / if the rule was implemented. Was assuming I just didn't know where / how to come to a mutual peace.

I wouldn't want to try to code that particular rule statement as it seems pretty much impossible and likely not worth the effort.



Dabrion -> RE: Mutual Peace? Japan and USSR (3/3/2014 11:03:47 PM)

Btw I remember a thread where Steve and Patrice iterate the option 50 implementation. Why is this not in the game?



michaelbaldur -> RE: Mutual Peace? Japan and USSR (3/3/2014 11:11:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zartacla

I'm being vacuous and insulting? You pompous, condescending, jerk... It's not bad enough that people are frustrated by a 4 month old game still plagued with bugs, or with patches that break the game and go unfixed for a week at a time, you have to come and be condescending toward anyone that dares hint that the game isn't perfect or imply that it's our fault for not being more helpful in fixing it?

And by the way, he wasn't asking about optional rule 50, nimrod. He was talking about NON OPTIONAL RULE 13.7.3 which is in the RULES AS CODED on p. 113

RTFM yourself.




there are rules for conduct on the forum.

your posts are valid, but please be a gentleman.



Dabrion -> RE: Mutual Peace? Japan and USSR (3/3/2014 11:21:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelbaldur


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zartacla

I'm being vacuous and insulting? You pompous, condescending, jerk... It's not bad enough that people are frustrated by a 4 month old game still plagued with bugs, or with patches that break the game and go unfixed for a week at a time, you have to come and be condescending toward anyone that dares hint that the game isn't perfect or imply that it's our fault for not being more helpful in fixing it?

And by the way, he wasn't asking about optional rule 50, nimrod. He was talking about NON OPTIONAL RULE 13.7.3 which is in the RULES AS CODED on p. 113

RTFM yourself.




there are rules for conduct on the forum.

your posts are valid, but please be a gentleman.


This should be directed at Paul as well.



Finarfïn -> RE: Mutual Peace? Japan and USSR (3/3/2014 11:36:07 PM)

Peace on earth...euh in MWIF ;)



[image]local://upfiles/47186/C8772494709244A59BD929B140B7E715.jpg[/image]



CrusssDaddy -> RE: Mutual Peace? Japan and USSR (3/4/2014 12:48:58 AM)

This is a replay of arguments that were begun three and four years ago if not longer but they are enjoyable again nonetheless. You cannot embarrass peytonbaldur for one-sided scolding re: board etiquette, do not even try. Has anyone checked their IP addresses, I think he and paul could be the same silly person.



bo -> RE: Mutual Peace? Japan and USSR (3/4/2014 2:51:04 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zartacla

I'm being vacuous and insulting? You pompous, condescending, jerk... It's not bad enough that people are frustrated by a 4 month old game still plagued with bugs, or with patches that break the game and go unfixed for a week at a time, you have to come and be condescending toward anyone that dares hint that the game isn't perfect or imply that it's our fault for not being more helpful in fixing it?

And by the way, he wasn't asking about optional rule 50, nimrod. He was talking about NON OPTIONAL RULE 13.7.3 which is in the RULES AS CODED on p. 113

RTFM yourself.




I wanted to but I cant let this go, you are one of the most informed knowledgeable posters here Zartaclca, I trully respecte your opinion and whether you believe this or not I am mortified when something goes wrong, I did not hesitate when I saw your tech post to inform Steve what you had put in your post to do with the supply popups, It could have gone many more hours before Steve saw it. It is not my job nor my duty to report anything to Steve from the main forums.

I did it out of concern for the game and to try and solve a respected posters question which I did and Steve acknowleged the problem and as he said ASAP. And he is, you will have a hot patch shortly.

With that said there is no reason to insult a respected beta tester like paul. I did not see where his anwer required that kind of a retort. Jesus we are all under pressure here, we really try to help and cruss you are no freaken help thats for sure, mind your own business unless you buy the game I feel you should not be complaining.

Enough is enough this kind of bullcrap from everybody is not helping the situation, the beta testers want this game maybe alot more than you do trust me I want to play not answer questions.

If we cant act civil to each other to get this wonderful game fixed then this game aint worth it, shove it.

And if it goes on I will ask all the beta testers to not answer anymore questions legitmate or not [all questions are legitmate] because I will not take that kind of insult from anyone. You can sit there and stew over your questions. Whether they will listen to me or not I do not know, or if it is even legal with my NDA but right now I dont care what anyone thinks including Matrix. I am really surprised at you Zartacla that horsemanure was not neccessary. It really did not help things.

Bo



Dabrion -> RE: Mutual Peace? Japan and USSR (3/4/2014 3:11:22 AM)

Bo, why dont you lock yourself in that warm fuzzy place that is the beta-forum. You can exchange apologies with the others, test the new builds, and we can move on here without your moral lessons and pseudo-privilege ransoming. Btw.. talking bullshit all the time is my privilege! Stop at once!!



bo -> RE: Mutual Peace? Japan and USSR (3/4/2014 3:17:43 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dabrion

Bo, why dont you lock yourself in that warm fuzzy place that is the beta-forum. You can exchange apologies with the others, test the new builds, and we can move on here without your moral lessons and pseudo-privilege ransoming. Btw.. talking bullshit all the time is my privilege! Stop at once!!



The post was not addressed to you it was directed at Zartacla mind your own business.

Bo



AxelNL -> RE: Mutual Peace? Japan and USSR (3/4/2014 5:56:18 AM)

when you are all done steaming, I am interested in how the new release behaves for you all.



Auchinleck -> RE: Mutual Peace? Japan and USSR (3/4/2014 1:32:13 PM)

Sounds like there is an expansion in the works: Forum in Flames. [:D]



Mike Parker -> RE: Mutual Peace? Japan and USSR (3/4/2014 2:25:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Parker

Have to agree with Zartacla here and normally I am one to go the other way on such things with MWIF. This is a broken feature of the game. Its not just unimplimented code its somethign that is documented as coded and its not. It is a minor issue, but in some games I think it could be a very major concern... i.e. when war breaks out there.

I'm not about to beat my chest and rend my clothes and pour ashes on my head but it is broken, any other interpretation is just erroneous.
warspite1

Gents, to be fair to Paulderynck I do not think he was trying to split hairs or be clever over language.

My take on it is that it is important we use the right terminology given the mess that things are in at the moment. Broken suggests its been coded and doesn't work, whereas uncoded is just that.

Just my 2 cents - we are all on the same side here. Frustrated, annoyed and desperate for the game to work.


I agree no need to go nuts over it. Just to me if I was classifying this as Broken or Not Yet implimented I would say Broken. But that is because I have been doing Q&A for code for the better part of 15 years. Broken doesn't always mean that coded things don't work right, it could mean that a feature needed is not yet coded, the option is broken. It needs to get looked at and fixed when Steve has time... also as a Q&A guy I think most folks here do not appreciate (as in understand) the great job being done with the weekly patches. Its not a simple thing to fix some things that seem simple. This fix should be pretty easy I would think, but there are in my mind many things above it on the priority list.

In any case I still say broken, but its not meant to be inflammatory or accusatory just a better classification of this particular problem.



joshuamnave -> RE: Mutual Peace? Japan and USSR (3/4/2014 3:14:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bo


I wanted to but I cant let this go, you are one of the most informed knowledgeable posters here Zartaclca,


No, I'm really not but thanks. I'm just one of the most prolific. I work at home and am minimally employed, so I have a lot of time on my hands. But I know far less about the game, both in terms of rules and strategy, than most of the regular posters here.


quote:

I trully respecte your opinion and whether you believe this or not I am mortified when something goes wrong, I did not hesitate when I saw your tech post to inform Steve what you had put in your post to do with the supply popups, It could have gone many more hours before Steve saw it. It is not my job nor my duty to report anything to Steve from the main forums.

I did it out of concern for the game and to try and solve a respected posters question which I did and Steve acknowleged the problem and as he said ASAP. And he is, you will have a hot patch shortly.


And I'm glad it was hotfixed so quickly. But you did it out of concern for the game, not for me. At least, I hope that's why you did it. If bugs are prioritized or not based on what the beta testers think about the person who reports the bug on a personal level, then we have much bigger issues at stake. And since the person who maintains the list of bugs so clearly holds me (and almost anyone that complains about problems in the game) in complete contempt, we have an even bigger problem.

quote:

With that said there is no reason to insult a respected beta tester like paul.


Respected by whom? He lost mine a while ago. He has a long history of being nothing but condescending, rude, insulting, disrespectful toward me and many others on the boards. This has been going on almost since I started posting here. I'm tired of his patronizing attitude. I'm tired of him implying that any problem encountered in the game is because I (or whomever the original poster is in a given thread) am just too stupid to get it right. If calling him out on it means you don't respect me anymore then so be it. This isn't about the beta testers, it's not about Steve, it's about Paul being rude to me and to others.

quote:

If we cant act civil to each other to get this wonderful game fixed then this game aint worth it, shove it.


Funny, that's how I feel every time I read one of Paul's responses to anyone's questions.

quote:

And if it goes on I will ask all the beta testers to not answer anymore questions legitmate or not [all questions are legitmate] because I will not take that kind of insult from anyone. You can sit there and stew over your questions. Whether they will listen to me or not I do not know, or if it is even legal with my NDA but right now I dont care what anyone thinks including Matrix. I am really surprised at you Zartacla that horsemanure was not neccessary. It really did not help things.


You're surprised that I finally responded to a pattern of insulting and condescending behavior from one person? Then you really don't know me at all. Paul doesn't answer questions, legitimate or others. He just tells people they are wrong, or stupid, or comparable to Homer Simpson dumping toxic waste in the water. He tells us that it's our fault the game isn't working right, or that we should just RTFM, and then tells us that he's the keeper of the bug list and we should just trust him to know what's best. He might have excellent organization skills and be the perfect person to maintain a bug list - I have no way of knowing that. But he has terrible personal skills and degrades my trust in the process with nearly every post he makes. As for telling the beta testers not to answer anyone's questions - do what you gotta do. Just make sure you tell him first. We would all be better off then.






bo -> RE: Mutual Peace? Japan and USSR (3/4/2014 4:25:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Parker


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Parker

Have to agree with Zartacla here and normally I am one to go the other way on such things with MWIF. This is a broken feature of the game. Its not just unimplimented code its somethign that is documented as coded and its not. It is a minor issue, but in some games I think it could be a very major concern... i.e. when war breaks out there.

I'm not about to beat my chest and rend my clothes and pour ashes on my head but it is broken, any other interpretation is just erroneous.
warspite1

Gents, to be fair to Paulderynck I do not think he was trying to split hairs or be clever over language.

My take on it is that it is important we use the right terminology given the mess that things are in at the moment. Broken suggests its been coded and doesn't work, whereas uncoded is just that.

Just my 2 cents - we are all on the same side here. Frustrated, annoyed and desperate for the game to work.


I agree no need to go nuts over it. Just to me if I was classifying this as Broken or Not Yet implimented I would say Broken. But that is because I have been doing Q&A for code for the better part of 15 years. Broken doesn't always mean that coded things don't work right, it could mean that a feature needed is not yet coded, the option is broken. It needs to get looked at and fixed when Steve has time... also as a Q&A guy I think most folks here do not appreciate (as in understand) the great job being done with the weekly patches. Its not a simple thing to fix some things that seem simple. This fix should be pretty easy I would think, but there are in my mind many things above it on the priority list.

In any case I still say broken, but its not meant to be inflammatory or accusatory just a better classification of this particular problem.


You said nothing wrong Mike, you are just stating some facts that you see that are not working right and I for one appreciate your input, and when it is done in a firm and not a derogatory phrase it helps beta testers mentally to want to help someone clear something up quickly if possible, without any animosty of any kind.

Bo



bo -> RE: Mutual Peace? Japan and USSR (3/4/2014 4:56:28 PM)

Zartacla

I have to admit I was not following the discussions between you and Paul lately and I had no idea what was going on, in fact after I sent your post last night to Steve I happened to see the post on Mutual Peace, my knowledge of the game is very limited as I never saw the game until I became a beta tester 2 years ago so I tend to stay away from posts that I cannot contribute to and that is one of them.

Ask me something about Guadalcanal I might be all right. [:(]

I reacted poorly about asking beta people not to answer questions on the main forums anger spoke first not common sense as I would have no right to ask that of my peers, they might agree with me in general but they would do what they thought was right not what I thought was right.

Paul needs no defending by me he is very capable of handling his own posts. In the several years I have known Paul he has been extremely helpful to me about rules and such. Paul is a person who does make statements in one line or less while I need two paragraphs to say the same thing. Which might make him a shade more terse or more to the point than I am capable of.

Yes I went to Steve for the betterment of the game about those popups, of course so would you if you were me. It just happened to be you that noticed the screw up. I also happen to like the way you find things so they can be corrected. Not catering to you or anybody else just a fact.

Bo



joshuamnave -> RE: Mutual Peace? Japan and USSR (3/4/2014 5:05:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bo


Ask me something about Guadalcanal I might be all right. [:(]



Well then we may be talking soon. I am absolutely a mess when it comes to the pacific war. I have no idea what I'm doing strategy wise and I flounder miserably when I get to that point in a global war game. I have trouble wrapping my head around strategic situations that are that fluid. The war in the west is much more linear.



bo -> RE: Mutual Peace? Japan and USSR (3/4/2014 5:35:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zartacla


quote:

ORIGINAL: bo


Ask me something about Guadalcanal I might be all right. [:(]



Well then we may be talking soon. I am absolutely a mess when it comes to the pacific war. I have no idea what I'm doing strategy wise and I flounder miserably when I get to that point in a global war game. I have trouble wrapping my head around strategic situations that are that fluid. The war in the west is much more linear.


I too like the war in the west for the same reason, I find it easier on my non military non strategic mind. But I am tired of the endless attacks against the immence Russian lanscape, computer game after computer game, Strategic Command, 3rd Reich, War in the East on and on, even god forbid Panzer corp.

The war in the Pacific is much more fluid, Guadalcanal is a very simplified part of that war. When Steve releases Day of Infamy [:(] hopefully soon you can concentrate on the full Pacific war. Global War hmmm can it be finished by several players in a lifetime[;)]
I really like WITP at first but after a while waiting for the computer to finish its move
after 2 days I got tired of it and it sits on a shelf with all of my old war games that I consider unplayable, or no replay value.

Outside of the programming problems we are having, there is something else I have noticed about MWIF. Outside of the board game owners of WIF and the grognards here this game is like no other that they have played. The word complexity should have warned potential buyers. Pleae correct me if I am wrong but I personally have never seen in war computer game complexity statement the words "Advance -Expert" That alone warns players this game is not for everyone, which also could be leading to some problems here. [Misunderstanding the complicated rules.]

I still play COD2 at least a half an hour a day just to relieve the stress of testing MWIF,[:D] the problem is I come away more frustrated than when I went in, when you go up against a 12 year old who can do back flips [and at the same jump the tallest buildings run faster than a locomotive oops wrong story] leap sideways and shoot you in the eye from 100 yards away the stress stays.

Bo



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.890625