RE: Sad, sad, sad....... (Full Version)

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



Message

Zorachus99 -> RE: Sad, sad, sad....... (3/14/2015 1:48:29 PM)

I bought the game because I'm getting old, and I make far too many simple mistakes on supply, and other complex issues playing the boardgame, and online with Vassal. I just need something to calculate supply, and prevent illegal moves

However, if you are any fan of SPI or other old wargames, realize that the most important aspect of this game has 2 serious issues.

1) Isolated units are automatically re-organized regardless of whether they can trace supply. You literally cannot pocket the enemy, wear them down, and kill them.
2) The finer points of tracing supply across straights is broken, so I had to abandon the first game I've been able to play past the first turn.

Paul offered to fix each supply problem I come across with a tool he has, but unfortunately, that brings me back to my first sentence. I sometimes get supply wrong for a long time until I take the time to investigate it. Why can't the customers have the same tool? Everyone cannot rely on beta-testers to fix their games to proceed. That is not a functional or realistic process. I tried to re-start a new game, but recently got stuck because a unit embarked on a transport ended up trapped in a space vortex, no point in submitting the bug though, my last bug report had 200+ views and zero replies.

So I'm more than 50 hours into my purchase since December 2013, and like many other people, have games I cannot finish. During those 50 hours, the game prevented hundreds, if not thousands of mistakes I might have made. No joke.

Do I feel like I got $100 worth of value out of the game? Not yet. Like many games, WIF will be in the discount bargain bin before it works properly. If the game worked in just one mode without bugs, it could be a cult classic, but as it is, it's simply frustrating for some of us.

I would really like to play this game to the end at least once.



jc4751 -> RE: Sad, sad, sad....... (3/14/2015 2:02:04 PM)

While I haven't purchased the game yet (waiting on tax refund), I've been watching the forums, reading up on the AARs and whatnot, and it does seem like the forums are dying. Some will say that this is because people are playing the game and not posting, but I don't think there's much merit to the statement. People like to talk about what they're doing and if they're playing a game, they're going to be talking about it.

Unfortunately, I don't see this game getting the traction it deserves, or needs in order to be a sustained effort, and I think others probably share some of the same concerns:

As a professional dev:

1. One guy coding it. This means that the project is at risk if he gets tired of it or is not able to continue for any reason. Sure, others could take a look at the code base, but, speaking from experience, it's often easier to throw away a code base and start fresh. There is also a lack of design review, sanity checks, and general "what ifs" when taking on a large project like this by yourself. I'm not impugning Steve's skills at all by noting this, only that, objectively speaking, it's an immense project.

2. The technology used -- I believe it's coded in Delphi? That makes me concerned for "future proofing." It's definitely not as widely used as Java, C++, or C#, and also means that anyone potentially helping with the project is going to have to get up to speed with the IDE and language first.

3. Stability -- reading through the bug reports about freezes and showstoppers reminds me of the "whack-a-mole death spiral" that happens when a code base becomes too complex to maintain.

4. Hungarian notation, in at least one code snippet. (yes, that's a joke, not a serious point)

As a gamer:

1. Price point. I understand the "Well, you get X hours of enjoyment out of it." While it's a valid argument, I suppose, $100 is still asking a lot for a computer game. The competition for a strategic WW2 game is considerably cheaper, whatever their merits as games are. I strongly think it was a mistake to argue that the manuals make the price point worthwhile -- it's like saying you have to buy a car with a gold-plated steering wheel, and the price of the car is worth it because of the gold-plated steering wheel. If people don't see the value, they're going to move on, no matter how good it seems.

2. No AI. While this is a forgivable sin for some, and the AI may not be up to the standards of a human player, the fact remains that most people expect this to be a standard feature in a game. I suspect that most people, like myself, are lifelong wargamers and are used to playing solitaire, this is probably becoming a decreasingly acceptable mode of play.

3. The presentation layer looks very dated in comparison to other offerings.

4. There is also the open question of creating a computerized version of a wargame, and I would think a computerized version of squad leader would run into the same sort of issue. Yes, a lot of people have played and enjoyed the board game, but at the end of the day, is the appeal for the game that it gives a good coverage of the subject matter, or that it's a good translation of a previous attempt to cover the subject matter? I think an apt comparison would be a computerized version of Pacific War or War in the Pacific to WitP:AE, or maybe Squad Leader to Steel Panthers, etc.

The positives:

1. WiF is a wargame, Hearts of Iron is a strategy game. While I like HoI, I've been interested in MWiF precisely because of the more wargamey nature of it.

2. There is a solid and well-developed rules set to draw on. This doesn't have the problem of trying to both define a rules set AND the code. People have vetted the design of the game over the years and have come to like it. Unlike ASL, WiF actually seems to lend itself to computerization, because the while real-world action is being simulated in the rules, it's not designed as an alternate means of reflecting reality, but as an abstraction of it. If you want to ponder that a moment, think about the defensive fire rules in ASL vs how they are handled in Close Combat or something. Reading over the AARs, I feel like "Okay, this makes sense and is intuitive."

3. While I have never spoken with Steve, it's obvious that this is not a cash grab on his part, and that he has poured an awful lot of time and effort into it. I would like to think that passion for a project brings a quality to it that isn't typically found in other efforts like the umpteenth "Flappy Bird" clone.

Well, anyway, those are my thoughts on it, and I've tried to be as objective as possible. Like I said, I plan to buy it, partly to support continued development, and partly because it really is unique. However, I'm not exactly optimistic about the future state of the game, and wonder if it would take a reboot of the code base and a larger team at some point to make it be what it should be.



etsadler -> RE: Sad, sad, sad....... (3/14/2015 3:07:19 PM)

As to the idea that the forum is lightly populated and used I can say this: I visit this forum virtually every day. Every day there has been something posted in the MWiF forum. Many of the other game forums can't say that. I do not believe I have ever checked this forum and not seen something new. I'm not saying it is busy, vibrant, etc., but its not dead.



MorningDew -> RE: Sad, sad, sad....... (3/14/2015 3:20:55 PM)

I purchased, have read and dabbled, but find it overwhelming to date. I do think getting NetPlay working properly will have a positive impact. If I can find another person to play, I am more likely to commit.

I believe another big help would be some "Let's Play" videos of the smaller two scenarios. I would really enjoy watching some veterans playing through Barbarossa and Guadalcanal and listening to their commentary. I believe the odds are much higher that I would jump in having witnessed an actual game. The tutorials are too isolated on one topic so do not have the same impact.



warspite1 -> RE: Sad, sad, sad....... (3/14/2015 3:31:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: cataphract88

This topic makes depressing reading. In solitaire mode, at least, have the bugs been ironed out yet?
warspite1

Nope. As you can see from the AAR's the game is playable in solitaire mode, but sometimes you have to ignore some things and just carry on e.g. not being able to send an Italian resource to a factory, some supply issues etc. It comes down to whether your love of the game is sufficient to overcome the issues or not.



As long as there are fatal bugs in the program, I don't consider it to be playable... To much isn't working as it should. Now, perhaps that is too harsh to conclude, but that is how I see things. One can deal with bugs when one can work around them. You could deal with bugs like not enforcing mandatory losses (since a player can take that loss themselves). But if a game freezes on the choice of naval combats, or when you are intercepting a moving stack of naval units, or when you choose a US entry option... Those things should be dealt with first and get rid of. Get solitair working in the basic game first, without any mad excepts or freezes, that should be the first goal, IMHO...


warspite1

Well we made our feelings known on this at the time, but Matrix felt that they could not ignore netplay any longer. It's their gig so nothing we can do but get on with it - but like you I still think it was the wrong call.

That call looks even more wrong now that we have shown PBEM is possible using solitaire mode. So what you end up with is solitaire, PBEM and netplay players all frustrated instead of just netplay.....



rkr1958 -> RE: Sad, sad, sad....... (3/14/2015 3:38:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: cataphract88

This topic makes depressing reading. In solitaire mode, at least, have the bugs been ironed out yet?
warspite1

Nope. As you can see from the AAR's the game is playable in solitaire mode, but sometimes you have to ignore some things and just carry on e.g. not being able to send an Italian resource to a factory, some supply issues etc. It comes down to whether your love of the game is sufficient to overcome the issues or not.



As long as there are fatal bugs in the program, I don't consider it to be playable... To much isn't working as it should. Now, perhaps that is too harsh to conclude, but that is how I see things. One can deal with bugs when one can work around them. You could deal with bugs like not enforcing mandatory losses (since a player can take that loss themselves). But if a game freezes on the choice of naval combats, or when you are intercepting a moving stack of naval units, or when you choose a US entry option... Those things should be dealt with first and get rid of. Get solitair working in the basic game first, without any mad excepts or freezes, that should be the first goal, IMHO...


I've played fully through the global war scenario once (with AAR), the Guadalcanal scenario once (with AAR), the Barbarossa scenario 4 or 5 times and the Global War scenario stopped at various points (from early 1940 to late 1942) due to poor strategic decisions on my part a half-dozen times. During all those plays I've never encountered a fatal error that forced me to stop the game. Now, I will say that I've encountered my share of freezes and mad exception crashes, which forced me to go back to the latest autosave and pick the game up from there. While bothersome these freezes and crashes from my experience / estimate don't occur that frequently. I'd estimate they occur only once every 5 to 10-hours of game time.

So I'm confused when others (just no you) say the game is unplayable because of fatal bugs. Maybe I don't know what you mean by a fatal bug? But when I get a crash I go back to the latest autosave and then get the game past the crash even if it require different move(s) or combat(s).



bo -> RE: Sad, sad, sad....... (3/14/2015 4:16:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jc4751

While I haven't purchased the game yet (waiting on tax refund), I've been watching the forums, reading up on the AARs and whatnot, and it does seem like the forums are dying. Some will say that this is because people are playing the game and not posting, but I don't think there's much merit to the statement. People like to talk about what they're doing and if they're playing a game, they're going to be talking about it.

Unfortunately, I don't see this game getting the traction it deserves, or needs in order to be a sustained effort, and I think others probably share some of the same concerns:

As a professional dev:

1. One guy coding it. This means that the project is at risk if he gets tired of it or is not able to continue for any reason. Sure, others could take a look at the code base, but, speaking from experience, it's often easier to throw away a code base and start fresh. There is also a lack of design review, sanity checks, and general "what ifs" when taking on a large project like this by yourself. I'm not impugning Steve's skills at all by noting this, only that, objectively speaking, it's an immense project.

2. The technology used -- I believe it's coded in Delphi? That makes me concerned for "future proofing." It's definitely not as widely used as Java, C++, or C#, and also means that anyone potentially helping with the project is going to have to get up to speed with the IDE and language first.

3. Stability -- reading through the bug reports about freezes and showstoppers reminds me of the "whack-a-mole death spiral" that happens when a code base becomes too complex to maintain.

4. Hungarian notation, in at least one code snippet. (yes, that's a joke, not a serious point)

As a gamer:

1. Price point. I understand the "Well, you get X hours of enjoyment out of it." While it's a valid argument, I suppose, $100 is still asking a lot for a computer game. The competition for a strategic WW2 game is considerably cheaper, whatever their merits as games are. I strongly think it was a mistake to argue that the manuals make the price point worthwhile -- it's like saying you have to buy a car with a gold-plated steering wheel, and the price of the car is worth it because of the gold-plated steering wheel. If people don't see the value, they're going to move on, no matter how good it seems.

2. No AI. While this is a forgivable sin for some, and the AI may not be up to the standards of a human player, the fact remains that most people expect this to be a standard feature in a game. I suspect that most people, like myself, are lifelong wargamers and are used to playing solitaire, this is probably becoming a decreasingly acceptable mode of play.

3. The presentation layer looks very dated in comparison to other offerings.

4. There is also the open question of creating a computerized version of a wargame, and I would think a computerized version of squad leader would run into the same sort of issue. Yes, a lot of people have played and enjoyed the board game, but at the end of the day, is the appeal for the game that it gives a good coverage of the subject matter, or that it's a good translation of a previous attempt to cover the subject matter? I think an apt comparison would be a computerized version of Pacific War or War in the Pacific to WitP:AE, or maybe Squad Leader to Steel Panthers, etc.

The positives:

1. WiF is a wargame, Hearts of Iron is a strategy game. While I like HoI, I've been interested in MWiF precisely because of the more wargamey nature of it.

2. There is a solid and well-developed rules set to draw on. This doesn't have the problem of trying to both define a rules set AND the code. People have vetted the design of the game over the years and have come to like it. Unlike ASL, WiF actually seems to lend itself to computerization, because the while real-world action is being simulated in the rules, it's not designed as an alternate means of reflecting reality, but as an abstraction of it. If you want to ponder that a moment, think about the defensive fire rules in ASL vs how they are handled in Close Combat or something. Reading over the AARs, I feel like "Okay, this makes sense and is intuitive."

3. While I have never spoken with Steve, it's obvious that this is not a cash grab on his part, and that he has poured an awful lot of time and effort into it. I would like to think that passion for a project brings a quality to it that isn't typically found in other efforts like the umpteenth "Flappy Bird" clone.

Well, anyway, those are my thoughts on it, and I've tried to be as objective as possible. Like I said, I plan to buy it, partly to support continued development, and partly because it really is unique. However, I'm not exactly optimistic about the future state of the game, and wonder if it would take a reboot of the code base and a larger team at some point to make it be what it should be.


Plus 1, well said.[;)]

Bo



bo -> RE: Sad, sad, sad....... (3/14/2015 4:18:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958


quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: cataphract88

This topic makes depressing reading. In solitaire mode, at least, have the bugs been ironed out yet?
warspite1

Nope. As you can see from the AAR's the game is playable in solitaire mode, but sometimes you have to ignore some things and just carry on e.g. not being able to send an Italian resource to a factory, some supply issues etc. It comes down to whether your love of the game is sufficient to overcome the issues or not.



As long as there are fatal bugs in the program, I don't consider it to be playable... To much isn't working as it should. Now, perhaps that is too harsh to conclude, but that is how I see things. One can deal with bugs when one can work around them. You could deal with bugs like not enforcing mandatory losses (since a player can take that loss themselves). But if a game freezes on the choice of naval combats, or when you are intercepting a moving stack of naval units, or when you choose a US entry option... Those things should be dealt with first and get rid of. Get solitair working in the basic game first, without any mad excepts or freezes, that should be the first goal, IMHO...


I've played fully through the global war scenario once (with AAR), the Guadalcanal scenario once (with AAR), the Barbarossa scenario 4 or 5 times and the Global War scenario stopped at various points (from early 1940 to late 1942) due to poor strategic decisions on my part a half-dozen times. During all those plays I've never encountered a fatal error that forced me to stop the game. Now, I will say that I've encountered my share of freezes and mad exception crashes, which forced me to go back to the latest autosave and pick the game up from there. While bothersome these freezes and crashes from my experience / estimate don't occur that frequently. I'd estimate they occur only once every 5 to 10-hours of game time.

So I'm confused when others (just no you) say the game is unplayable because of fatal bugs. Maybe I don't know what you mean by a fatal bug? But when I get a crash I go back to the latest autosave and then get the game past the crash even if it require different move(s) or combat(s).



I think the point that some posters are trying to make is that you should not have to go back to autosave [:(]

Bo



rkr1958 -> RE: Sad, sad, sad....... (3/14/2015 4:27:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bo

I think the point that some posters are trying to make is that you should not have to go back to autosave [:(]

Bo
Bo, I can understand that. But let me pose a comparison for thought. In a play through of WiF with cardboard and paper how often do you think that folks have to go back and "fix" something that they messed up either rules or mechanic wise? Isn't having to go back to an autosave for the occasional crash or freeze in some sense equivalent to that?



paulderynck -> RE: Sad, sad, sad....... (3/14/2015 4:37:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958
Bo, I can understand that. But let me pose a comparison for thought. In a play through of WiF with cardboard and paper how often do you think that folks have to go back and "fix" something that they messed up either rules or mechanic wise? Isn't having to go back to an autosave for the occasional crash or freeze in some sense equivalent to that?


At the very, very least: least once per session. Just finished one for today and been playing for an hour and 15 minutes. So anticipating today's count will be two...



Centuur -> RE: Sad, sad, sad....... (3/14/2015 4:53:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck


quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958
Bo, I can understand that. But let me pose a comparison for thought. In a play through of WiF with cardboard and paper how often do you think that folks have to go back and "fix" something that they messed up either rules or mechanic wise? Isn't having to go back to an autosave for the occasional crash or freeze in some sense equivalent to that?


At the very, very least: least once per session. Just finished one for today and been playing for an hour and 15 minutes. So anticipating today's count will be two...


There is something else to consider too. You play a game on a strategic level and everything to do needs to be prepared. If you don't prepare for things, World In Flames as a game has got the nasty thing build in it that your opponent will crush you if you are not prepared. Sometimes you prepare for things which are about to happen in a couple of turns. Suddenly, the game doesn't allow you to proceed anymore, due to a fatal bug. For example: in the AAR I'm doing, I'm preparing the take over of Northern Ireland by the US. Got a nice stash of oil ready to give to the US by the CW in Belfast last turn. The US has got ships and manpower at sea to sail into port. Suddenly, everything freezes when I choose that US entry option... To counter the effect this is having, one should probably go back at least two or three turns, since preparations started the moment the US failed the attempts to DoW the Japanese three times.
You simply can't have the game freezing on you on important decisions like choosing US entry options.
The same with naval combat. If one side aborts, those ships can be intercepted in the next sea area when they have to move this to get to a port, accodering to the rules. It's pretty discouraging to see something going wrong there too. Nothing better than to kill off damaged ships when they are forced into the zero box while trying to reach a save port.
Just a couple of things here, which are so important to the boardgame, which need to be running smoothly and nicely, to give you really the flavour of the game.

Sure, the game isn't that bad. Sure, you can get a whole game done if you simply ignore certain actions you might be able to use. But that's not how the game should work, isn't it...



warspite1 -> RE: Sad, sad, sad....... (3/14/2015 5:30:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958


quote:

ORIGINAL: bo

I think the point that some posters are trying to make is that you should not have to go back to autosave [:(]

Bo
Bo, I can understand that. But let me pose a comparison for thought. In a play through of WiF with cardboard and paper how often do you think that folks have to go back and "fix" something that they messed up either rules or mechanic wise? Isn't having to go back to an autosave for the occasional crash or freeze in some sense equivalent to that?

warspite1

Good point rkr1958 but with just one counter. What you say is absolutely right - rules discussions over the years have shown just how many of us regularly played rules wrong - and that's just the ones we know about!!

Similarly there must have been hundreds of missed cases of OOS or illegal moves or whatever that were missed by the players. We had to start a Global War game again once because the German player forgot to place his 1941 force pool and didn't notice until he complained that he no units to by about half way through the year.... he was popular...

The caveat? This is the age of computer games and I am sure the hope was that this brilliant game would be opened up to a whole generation of gamers - but necesarily that means gamers who expect their games to you know.. work? As someone I think pointed out earlier, knowing the game at least allows the ability to work round because you know what is wrong and what should have happened.

But when you don't know a game like this and are trying to get to grips with the monster, what you really don't need is a convoy system that takes half your life to work out and then, when you hit a problem, is that because you understand the rule wrong, its or bug or is the program just being tempremental? Same with bugs and...and.... [uninstalls game in a fit of anger, frustration and feeling of wasted money].



bo -> RE: Sad, sad, sad....... (3/14/2015 5:45:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958


quote:

ORIGINAL: bo

I think the point that some posters are trying to make is that you should not have to go back to autosave [:(]

Bo
Bo, I can understand that. But let me pose a comparison for thought. In a play through of WiF with cardboard and paper how often do you think that folks have to go back and "fix" something that they messed up either rules or mechanic wise? Isn't having to go back to an autosave for the occasional crash or freeze in some sense equivalent to that?



Good point I would never have thought of that because I never had the pleasure of playing the board game. My sons played Advance squad leader which IMHO is on par with WIF even though one is strategic and one is tactical, both wonderful board games.

I played computer 3rd Reich for several years and outside of the fact that the AI got lost in some situations it was a fun quick beer and pretzels game.

I never had the pleasure of playing 3rd Reich against a human opponent. There was IMO no issues with the game other than the AI being slightly incompetent adversary, even though I found it to be quite adequate for the first year game wise.

But that game was released if my memory servers me correctly without or with very little minor bugs which were quickly corrected. I feel there is no comparison between 3rd Reich and MWIF for realism of a strategic nature, with MWIF the programming had to be much tougher than 3rd Reich granted but you would think with the advancement of computers and programming language since 3rd Reich was made that we would not have these problems that we are having with MWIF. Something is not right.

With deep regret for saying this I feel I will never enjoy playing MWIF as it was meant to be played with minor bugs that really do not interrupt the flow of the game, a competent AI, Pbem and a hot seat free of most troubles. Do hope I am wrong.

Bo




bo -> RE: Sad, sad, sad....... (3/14/2015 7:55:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AndrewKurtz

I purchased, have read and dabbled, but find it overwhelming to date. I do think getting NetPlay working properly will have a positive impact. If I can find another person to play, I am more likely to commit.

I believe another big help would be some "Let's Play" videos of the smaller two scenarios. I would really enjoy watching some veterans playing through Barbarossa and Guadalcanal and listening to their commentary. I believe the odds are much higher that I would jump in having witnessed an actual game. The tutorials are too isolated on one topic so do not have the same impact.


Hi Andrew

When I first became a beta tester for MWIF I was overwhelmed as I never saw this game before but after surviving the initial gasps by me I plodded on and the game took life at least for me, I started the first AAR for Guadalcanal because I wanted to introduce invasions of islands and naval warfare. And if a newbie like me could understand this brilliant game so will you.

I apologize for myself only for the state of affairs that this game is in and that it was even released. I will be glad to help you with Guadalcanal if you so wish by e-mail or by posting here.

my e-mail is "bowenw1@verizon.net" Guadalcanal is a short but sound scenario to do with naval warfare which I believe is the hardest to learn of all the game play other then production.

Bo



AlphonseZukor -> RE: Sad, sad, sad....... (3/14/2015 9:28:59 PM)

I'm still interested in this game. I'm just waiting for the AI (as well as money to buy a new computer).



Missouri_Rebel -> RE: Sad, sad, sad....... (3/14/2015 11:01:56 PM)

I think Warspite makes a great point. Learning this monster is definitely a labor of love, one which I think rkr1958 has put the best effort in ever. As to Warspites comment about learning things that could be wrong, broken, not fully functional, not implemented in the most straight forward way, or just a bug has to be the biggest hurdle to overcome.

Is this game A Bridge Too Far to deliver on the computer? I don't think so. I'd be more worried about that being the case if there wasn't someone so dedicated as Steve seems to be. I'm not speaking to how it should be, I'm talking about the reality of the situation now. He plugs away and I hope that one day the game will be where everyone wants it to be. I haven't seen anything in any of his postings that leads me to believe that it will be abandoned. I certainly hope it won't anyways.

People always say that ASL would be impossible to ever code. Personally, I think WiF is a much larger task.



jc4751 -> RE: Sad, sad, sad....... (3/15/2015 2:03:11 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Missouri_Rebel

I think Warspite makes a great point. Learning this monster is definitely a labor of love, one which I think rkr1958 has put the best effort in ever. As to Warspites comment about learning things that could be wrong, broken, not fully functional, not implemented in the most straight forward way, or just a bug has to be the biggest hurdle to overcome.

Is this game A Bridge Too Far to deliver on the computer? I don't think so. I'd be more worried about that being the case if there wasn't someone so dedicated as Steve seems to be. I'm not speaking to how it should be, I'm talking about the reality of the situation now. He plugs away and I hope that one day the game will be where everyone wants it to be. I haven't seen anything in any of his postings that leads me to believe that it will be abandoned. I certainly hope it won't anyways.

People always say that ASL would be impossible to ever code. Personally, I think WiF is a much larger task.


The thing that would murder coding ASL is the Special Rules in scenarios. I once started doing up a preliminary design for a computer ASL, as a thought exercise, and realized that it would take a fairly robust rules engine to handle all the "exception to the rule" that those bring to the table. The rest of the game was fairly straightforward stuff, even including the maps and whatnot, because of its relatively generic nature. Truthfully, I think that if ASL were coded as designed, it would be excruciatingly tedious to play, which is probably why there's never been a true translation of the game to the PC. From what I've read with the AARs, WiF seems to be enhanced by hitting the PC, not diminished by it, even with the current state of the game.



Missouri_Rebel -> RE: Sad, sad, sad....... (3/15/2015 2:47:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jc4751


quote:

ORIGINAL: Missouri_Rebel

I think Warspite makes a great point. Learning this monster is definitely a labor of love, one which I think rkr1958 has put the best effort in ever. As to Warspites comment about learning things that could be wrong, broken, not fully functional, not implemented in the most straight forward way, or just a bug has to be the biggest hurdle to overcome.

Is this game A Bridge Too Far to deliver on the computer? I don't think so. I'd be more worried about that being the case if there wasn't someone so dedicated as Steve seems to be. I'm not speaking to how it should be, I'm talking about the reality of the situation now. He plugs away and I hope that one day the game will be where everyone wants it to be. I haven't seen anything in any of his postings that leads me to believe that it will be abandoned. I certainly hope it won't anyways.

People always say that ASL would be impossible to ever code. Personally, I think WiF is a much larger task.


The thing that would murder coding ASL is the Special Rules in scenarios. I once started doing up a preliminary design for a computer ASL, as a thought exercise, and realized that it would take a fairly robust rules engine to handle all the "exception to the rule" that those bring to the table. The rest of the game was fairly straightforward stuff, even including the maps and whatnot, because of its relatively generic nature. Truthfully, I think that if ASL were coded as designed, it would be excruciatingly tedious to play, which is probably why there's never been a true translation of the game to the PC. From what I've read with the AARs, WiF seems to be enhanced by hitting the PC, not diminished by it, even with the current state of the game.



Didnt mean to take the thread this way. But yeah. I agree about the special scenario rules. I hadn't thought of that.



bo -> RE: Sad, sad, sad....... (3/15/2015 3:23:17 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Missouri_Rebel


quote:

ORIGINAL: jc4751


quote:

ORIGINAL: Missouri_Rebel

I think Warspite makes a great point. Learning this monster is definitely a labor of love, one which I think rkr1958 has put the best effort in ever. As to Warspites comment about learning things that could be wrong, broken, not fully functional, not implemented in the most straight forward way, or just a bug has to be the biggest hurdle to overcome.

Is this game A Bridge Too Far to deliver on the computer? I don't think so. I'd be more worried about that being the case if there wasn't someone so dedicated as Steve seems to be. I'm not speaking to how it should be, I'm talking about the reality of the situation now. He plugs away and I hope that one day the game will be where everyone wants it to be. I haven't seen anything in any of his postings that leads me to believe that it will be abandoned. I certainly hope it won't anyways.

People always say that ASL would be impossible to ever code. Personally, I think WiF is a much larger task.


The thing that would murder coding ASL is the Special Rules in scenarios. I once started doing up a preliminary design for a computer ASL, as a thought exercise, and realized that it would take a fairly robust rules engine to handle all the "exception to the rule" that those bring to the table. The rest of the game was fairly straightforward stuff, even including the maps and whatnot, because of its relatively generic nature. Truthfully, I think that if ASL were coded as designed, it would be excruciatingly tedious to play, which is probably why there's never been a true translation of the game to the PC. From what I've read with the AARs, WiF seems to be enhanced by hitting the PC, not diminished by it, even with the current state of the game.



Didnt mean to take the thread this way. But yeah. I agree about the special scenario rules. I hadn't thought of that.


The thread is fine Reb but if Steve is having all these problems with the general rules what makes anyone here think that he can implement the special scenario rules. Not being snarky just being a realist.

Bo



Missouri_Rebel -> RE: Sad, sad, sad....... (3/15/2015 4:03:55 AM)

Because there are only a few scenarios and most of the scenario rules have to do with the conditions at the time of the scenario whereas ASL has hundreds of scenarios with many having very specific and often quite peculiar conditions.

Im not sure what the current state of entry options are, but they are the biggest variables in the wif scenarios imo.



pzgndr -> RE: Sad, sad, sad....... (3/15/2015 11:11:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jc4751
it would take a fairly robust rules engine to handle all the "exception to the rule" that those bring to the table


It's interesting that the original Kriegspiel purpose was for training and predictive functions to assess what might or might not work in the future. Now the games tend more toward sims to recreate history down to a gnat's ass detail. See WITE/WITW... Something rather basic and fundamental has been lost along the way, making our "games" more like work than fun. Whatever...



jc4751 -> RE: Sad, sad, sad....... (3/15/2015 12:43:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr


quote:

ORIGINAL: jc4751
it would take a fairly robust rules engine to handle all the "exception to the rule" that those bring to the table


It's interesting that the original Kriegspiel purpose was for training and predictive functions to assess what might or might not work in the future. Now the games tend more toward sims to recreate history down to a gnat's ass detail. See WITE/WITW... Something rather basic and fundamental has been lost along the way, making our "games" more like work than fun. Whatever...


Very true. The problem, obviously, is that no matter how much we try to simulate history, or the performance of certain weapons, or whatnot, we're still only simulating it. After spending some time studying the original Squad Leader rules as a kid, my tired brain started imagining a game where the player would play the ultimate simulation of a soldier taking a step in combat, down to what sort of boot he had and the condition of the ground underneath his foot. Of course, I forgot to account for any missing toes...

I think there's a fine line between detail, accessibility, and simulation. A real simulation is something that eludes even the more sophisticated military-grade wargames, and even if they are accurate, the participants may or may not accept the results as valid, with the results often being that the results are discarded or the rules altered and the simulation re-run. There is also a question of how much detail is needed -- I once had a nasty argument with a formerly well-known wargame commentator who saw no merit in tracking ammunition load when Close Combat was being designed. On the other hand, if it adds some flavor and doesn't get in the way of a higher level analysis, then it's not necessarily a bad thing...it probably depends on the willingness of the players and designers to deal with that detail and personal choice. A lot of people, myself included, enjoy WitP:AE, even though I'd consider it probably the most over the top amount of detail ever collected in a wargame



brian brian -> RE: Sad, sad, sad....... (3/16/2015 12:56:38 AM)

[image]http://36.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lqtiviiKmk1qzmowao1_1280.jpg[/image]



rkr1958 -> RE: Sad, sad, sad....... (3/16/2015 1:28:45 AM)

I played my first wargame, Stalingrad, when I was 12 back in 1970. It belonged to my cousin in-law, who is 10-years older than me. One evening he got it out and he, myself, my brother (12-years older than me) and cousin (2-years older and NOT his wife!) played. My brother and I were the Germans and my cousin in-law and cousin were the Soviets. We played and it got late. My brother and cousin in-law dropped out, leaving the game to me and my cousin. I'm sure there were many rules we broke and illegal moves we made. No matter, I had a blast and won by capturing Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad. I was hooked, but didn't get to play any wargame again until 2-years later when my brother got me Avalon Hill's France 1940 for Christmas. I was 14 and this was my very own and first war game. One that I still have today along with all the others I acquired over the years.

Through my teens and early 20's I acquired several more wargames (around 20 or so). My absolute favorites were Avalon Hill's 3rd Reich, Victory in the Pacific, War at Sea, Squad Leader and Cross of Iron. Though I also did play a lot of Panzer Leader and Panzer Blitz.

Then like most, I got married, work demands increased and life / adult responsibilities happened. I didn't have the time or space for playing wargames any longer. Then came the personal computer and computer wargames. AH's 3rd Reich on the PC and then Slitherine's / Matrix's Commander Europe at War (Ground Strategy), Battlefield Academy and Panzer Corps. Not only could I start a game in minutes, where it use to take hours digging through and finding counters, no to mention the time it took reading and interpreting the rules. Also, I could stop a game at most any point save it and pick it up hours or even days later.

It was around then, about a decade or so ago, that I heard of something called WiF and its adaption to computer called MWiF. To say the least the scale and depth of this game overwhelmed me. But, a year ago, I decided to give it a try and have been richly rewarded. I have to say that MWiF is the most in depth, accurate and addictive wargame that I've ever played or could ever hope to play. So I am too sadden but sadden by the negativity around this great game (MWiF) whatever flaws it might have. I hope that we all can stay the course, see it blossom even more and attract new people to it. Unfortunately, life and work dictates that my play remain solitaire, so my only (small as it is) contribution in trying to keep this game going is to post in this forum while others really are doing the heavy lifting.



Neilster -> RE: Sad, sad, sad....... (3/16/2015 7:54:50 AM)

I've been here for over ten years and I can remember numerous posts from the early days of this project that said even a computer WiF without an AI, online play and PBEM was a ludicrous dream. And that was when CWiF had been around for years. Well, it basically exists and further progress is being made.

At every stage there have been pessimists and naysayers but Steve has kept stoically plugging away. OK, it's taken longer than we'd like but there isn't an alternative. I don't know about anyone else but there are many other great games to occupy me and a life to lead while MWiF progresses.

I just thought I'd add a bit of perspective. The AI is Steve's main interest in the whole project so I'm sure he's doing all he can to complete the stuff required before he can wholeheartedly embark on its implementation.

Cheers, Neilster.



bo -> RE: Sad, sad, sad....... (3/16/2015 3:56:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

[image]http://36.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lqtiviiKmk1qzmowao1_1280.jpg[/image]



Love it [:D]

Bo



bo -> RE: Sad, sad, sad....... (3/16/2015 4:01:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Neilster

I've been here for over ten years and I can remember numerous posts from the early days of this project that said even a computer WiF without an AI, online play and PBEM was a ludicrous dream. And that was when CWiF had been around for years. Well, it basically exists and further progress is being made.

At every stage there have been pessimists and naysayers but Steve has kept stoically plugging away. OK, it's taken longer than we'd like but there isn't an alternative. I don't know about anyone else but there are many other great games to occupy me and a life to lead while MWiF progresses.

I just thought I'd add a bit of perspective. The AI is Steve's main interest in the whole project so I'm sure he's doing all he can to complete the stuff required before he can wholeheartedly embark on its implementation.

Cheers, Neilster.



G'day Neilster[;)] glad to see your still around, could you recommend to me some of those great games so I could partake in them [:D] no truly glad to see you here.

Bo



Orm -> RE: Sad, sad, sad....... (3/16/2015 9:56:28 PM)

Maybe you would enjoy World or Warships when it is released? Looks fun enough for me but my computer can not even run World of Tanks so that is out of my league.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebx89jbm2vw



bo -> RE: Sad, sad, sad....... (3/16/2015 11:11:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

Maybe you would enjoy World or Warships when it is released? Looks fun enough for me but my computer can not even run World of Tanks so that is out of my league.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebx89jbm2vw


Thank you Orm my grandson is a beta tester for them and he said it looks great. I play WOT all the time because I have not found one computer game of WW2 strategy that I feel I would like. I was a beta tester for WOT and they still have some big LOS problems. also he is also beta testing a vintage warships game with sails coming out soon, from I believe Steam Greenlight, the graphics are fantastic.

About WOT for the computer I was getting 10 to 18 FPS and it was annoying, I bought a new computer for about $750 US 5 months ago and I am getting 38 to 50 FPS, a great improvement. My machine uses the new intel i7 4770 chip 3,40ghz with 1 mg of ram but a middle of the line nvidia card. Total memory 7.95 GB, works well.

Bo



brian brian -> RE: Sad, sad, sad....... (3/17/2015 12:22:27 AM)

re: Advanced Squad Leader - though I never played ASL, I played a lot of the system through Crescendo of Doom. I just wouldn't see any point to computerizing that system. Perhaps using it as a building block for a better game, particularly with the morale and leaders systems for combat results. But if I was going to play that game on a computer, I would want the power of technology harnessed to improve things. Let the computer be a total Umpire, keeping track of where all the soldiers are, which ones can see which ones on the other side, implementing simultaneous movement ... lots and lots of things that are hard to do with cardboard pieces and an I-Go-You-Go system.

World in Flames is the total opposite of Squad Leader, and is well suited to computer play as the game stands. But once some more of everyone's wish list is completed, my wish list is that some day the computer can be used to help streamline the play of the game. Just one simple thing - skipping a request for intercept when a naval force simply leaves port and stops in the first sea zone, as is done in face-to-face play - would speed things up. Any little thing to improve the speed of play is something that would ultimately make the game more popular.

World in Flames : Blitz will lead people to this game, there will always be people in the world more interested in war at a meta-level, though probably not quite so many as there are that just hope that if they play enough Game of War on their phone, they will eventually get to see Kate Upton's breasts somehow.

I rarely have much chance to play any WiF, on paper or a computer screen. I'm self-employed and frequently work really long work weeks, with lots of travel. I know from that what Steve has accomplished is one hell of a feat; also I was a hobby programmer when I was younger. The project never goes backward, it only ever gets better.

I like to see traffic on this forum, as it is my main outlet for participating in the WiF hobby, and it is far from having slowed to a crawl. I suggest to anyone that is looking for more to absorb here that they can turn off the "within last year" option on one of the display menus and look at some of the old threads, particularly the ones Steve uses to begin informing the eventual AI routines. Pretty much every nuance of playing every Major Power in World in Flames, 7th Edition, has already been entered into this forum.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.890625