quote:

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

That was suggested [:)]. A few actually did become beta testers. Then at least they stopped complaining and wondering what was going on [:D]

I also agree that Matrix would have been much better served if the release of WiF was called early access or something like that. But as Erik has stated, they were unaware that there was this many issues on release and thought that the outstanding issues that were known could be fixed very quickly. Both assumptions were incorrect as it turns out [:(]

quote:

ORIGINAL: bo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

That was suggested [:)]. A few actually did become beta testers. Then at least they stopped complaining and wondering what was going on [:D]

I also agree that Matrix would have been much better served if the release of WiF was called early access or something like that. But as Erik has stated, they were unaware that there was this many issues on release and thought that the outstanding issues that were known could be fixed very quickly. Both assumptions were incorrect as it turns out [:(]

So true Nummy, I made crussdaddy[sm=innocent0004.gif] look like an angel some years back with my stupid ranting and raving about no AI etc., they shut me up by bringing me into the beta testing team and had me sign a NDS form [:(] OUCH [:@]

Bo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur

quote:

ORIGINAL: bo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

That was suggested [:)]. A few actually did become beta testers. Then at least they stopped complaining and wondering what was going on [:D]

I also agree that Matrix would have been much better served if the release of WiF was called early access or something like that. But as Erik has stated, they were unaware that there was this many issues on release and thought that the outstanding issues that were known could be fixed very quickly. Both assumptions were incorrect as it turns out [:(]

So true Nummy, I made crussdaddy[sm=innocent0004.gif] look like an angel some years back with my stupid ranting and raving about no AI etc., they shut me up by bringing me into the beta testing team and had me sign a NDS form [:(] OUCH [:@]

Bo

But Bo, don't you know that form did expire some months ago? Now, you, being the Nestor among the beta test team, can write anything you like in here. [&:]

How about the time that... Or the noise we made when... Or, or, or... To be honest, the forums of the past sometimes look like a soap opera.... [:D]


But to come back on what the paying customer (in this case Mr. Zartacla) is saying: he is right. He didn't get his money's worth out of the game, and neither did anyone else who paid for it (even if they say they are having a lot of fun with the game already)...

That is the truth and I don't like it at all. But we can't change what has happened, can we?

So lets hope Steve's health stays OK. If it does, this game will slowly but surely proceed towards the awesome game it will be, when it is finished. At that moment, we can say: finally: the customer gets the reward from his money spend, allthough it is a little late in coming...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

This bug actually does suck.

I recently did an attack in winter, with winterized units bonus, a motorized engineer, without using the engineer bonus, and the game didn't enforce any loss.

We could have spent 10-15 minutes looking through the rulebook to find out what unit takes precedence, but we decided to use the instructions on the screen which said I should lose a motorized unit. I still don't know what unit takes precedence, but that is how the game is programmed. If my opponent destroys the wrong unit 'by accident' I can't go back. The die rolls will be different, the air-to-air combat will have a different result, and the results will substantially change the game.

I'm a bit surprised that this combat bug can exist for so long.

So yes, this bug is screwing up games already.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joseignacio

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

This bug actually does suck.

I recently did an attack in winter, with winterized units bonus, a motorized engineer, without using the engineer bonus, and the game didn't enforce any loss.

We could have spent 10-15 minutes looking through the rulebook to find out what unit takes precedence, but we decided to use the instructions on the screen which said I should lose a motorized unit. I still don't know what unit takes precedence, but that is how the game is programmed. If my opponent destroys the wrong unit 'by accident' I can't go back. The die rolls will be different, the air-to-air combat will have a different result, and the results will substantially change the game.

I'm a bit surprised that this combat bug can exist for so long.

So yes, this bug is screwing up games already.

From Raw 7:

"If an ENG provides any benefits in an attack, it always suffers the first loss (even before white print units attacking in winter)."

22.4 Optional units
22.4.1 Divisions (AsA/MiF/PoliF option 2)

quote:

Q11.16-29

I am playing with the 2d10 table and I have 3 white-print units committed to attacking a hex during winter. Can I choose which of my white-print units will be receiving the winter bonus and thus subject to first loss?

Yes, although if you decide any are to receive the winter bonus, you may as well say they all are since if any do, the first loss must come from one of the attacking units receiving a winterised bonus (owner's choice). Date 12/11/2008

11.16.6 (chart): 8.2 Weather Effects
(...)
+1 ~ for each winterized unit attacking in Snow or Blizzard.
8.2.7: If at least half of your attacking land units are MTN, ski troops (AsA option 65), Swedish, Finnish, Norwegian, or white print Soviet units, you may lessen the odds reduction in snow or blizzard by 2 (i.e. snow has no effect and blizzard becomes a -1 odds shift). If you use this power, your first loss must be from one of these units (exception: MiF option 7 ~ engineers, see
22.4.1).

quote:

Q11.16-31 11.16.6
22.4.1 Option 2
For ENG, is the +1 per combat factor attacking a city declinable? Is this first-kill qualifying bonus?

Yes. Date 29/11/2007

11.6.6 (chart):
􀖜 +1 ~ per ENG combat factor attacking a city.
􀖜 -1 ~ per ENG combat factor defending a city.
22.4.1: If an ENG provides any benefits in an attack, it always suffers the first loss (even before white print units attacking in winter)

quote:

Blitz loss can be taken by what? Can it be taken by MOT ENG, ARM ART, etc? Or just the named types (MOT, MECH, ARM, HQA)? Are DIV OK too?

MOT, MECH, ARM, HQ-A corps, armies or divisions. Date 29/11/2007

11.6.6 (chart): 3d) When using the Blitz table no matter who called the blitz, the attacker’s first loss must be a MOT, MECH, ARM or HQ-A if any of these attacked (even before the winterised unit lost, but after ENG loss)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

So the pseudo-code would be:

if engineer uses engineer function, then engineer first, else
if winterized unit is using ability then winterized first, else
If blitz is chosen then mot type first, else
first loss is attackers choice

Thanks for everyone's help.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

So the pseudo-code would be:

if engineer uses engineer function, then engineer first, else
if winterized unit is using ability then winterized first, else
If blitz is chosen then mot type first, else
first loss is attackers choice

Thanks for everyone's help.

quote:

When using the Blitz table, no matter who chose it, the attacker’s first loss must be MOT, MECH, ARM, or HQ-A if any of those attacked (even before winterized unit loss, but after ENG loss).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Courtenay

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

So the pseudo-code would be:

if engineer uses engineer function, then engineer first, else
if winterized unit is using ability then winterized first, else
If blitz is chosen then mot type first, else
first loss is attackers choice

Thanks for everyone's help.

No. You have winterized and blitz reversed:

if engineer uses engineer function, then engineer first
if blitz and losses remain, than MOT, MECH, ARM or HQ-ARM next, if present
if winterized unit is using ability and losses remain, and a winterized unit has not already been destroyed, then winterized next
destroy any invading or parachute units if attacker did not take defender's hex
all remaining losses are attackers choice

Note that parachute and invasion losses can be more than the losses stated on the combat table. Indeed, given the right combat (a blitz combat with an ENG using its river crossing bonus combined with three parachute units attacking in snow weather with a winterized unit using its bonus and a combat result of three losses) it is possible for the attacker to lose six units in a single attack.

This is currently not implemented in MWiF, but it is RAW.

quote:

When using the Blitz table, no matter who chose it, the attacker’s first loss must be MOT, MECH, ARM, or HQ-A if any of those attacked (even before winterized unit loss, but after ENG loss).

quote:

I can paradrop into a hex, and simultaneously attack into the hex from an adjacent hex across a river, using an ENG to negate the river.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

quote:

I can paradrop into a hex, and simultaneously attack into the hex from an adjacent hex across a river, using an ENG to negate the river.

Indeed.

I expressed myself poorly. I just meant to say that if you paradrop into a hex and the other land units attack across a river hexside then there can be no extra loss for all units attacking across a hexside. The paratrooper didn't attack across the hexside.

quote:

To be specific, say an ENG and another unit attack across a river, with the ENG using its river crossing bonus, and a PAR drops onto the defending hex. The combat result is 0/1. The ENG and the PAR both die. Correct?

quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

Good Lord, I'm really confused. Honestly, this doesn't seem like a low priority bug to me. If the program doesn't enforce the correct losses and doesn't tell me how to enforce them how am I suppose to know?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

I'm so confused. Can we have some clarification here?