AI on the horizon (Full Version)

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



Message

npilgaard -> AI on the horizon (4/5/2020 8:57:37 AM)

Every time I drop by these forums, I am so impressed by the determination shown and amount of work delivered on this game. It is truly impressive!

Especially exciting is the mentioning in the April update of a separate AI forum and moving the AI discussion threads there. Sounds very promising! [:)]

Thanks for the tremendous effort, Steve!

Best regards
Nikolaj



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: AI on the horizon (4/8/2020 12:36:30 AM)

Test post.



RFalvo69 -> RE: AI on the horizon (4/11/2020 9:56:39 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: npilgaard

Every time I drop by these forums, I am so impressed by the determination shown and amount of work delivered on this game. It is truly impressive!


Agreed. Seven years after the game was published we are almost outside the "pre-Alpha" woods.

What there is to cheer, I don't know: we have right here the admission that the game was released a decade before it was ready. It is staggering. What there is to celebrate, I don't know either.

quote:


Especially exciting is the mentioning in the April update of a separate AI forum and moving the AI discussion threads there. Sounds very promising! [:)]


I agree about this, too: the promise of chasing an unobtainable goal (an AI for MWIF, with all its own trainload of discussions/bug chasing and beta-patches/hotfixes) instead of finishing the implementation of missing optional rules and half-map scenarios - so to have, at least, a finished MP game.

Today marks the day when I'm formally considering MWIF a total loss of 150 Euro. I'm uninstalling it. I'll play the Collector's Edition (which, when I bought it, was surprisingly complete) on VASSAL and good riddance to this farce.



jesperpehrson -> RE: AI on the horizon (4/11/2020 11:23:33 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

quote:

ORIGINAL: npilgaard

Every time I drop by these forums, I am so impressed by the determination shown and amount of work delivered on this game. It is truly impressive!


Agreed. Seven years after the game was published we are almost outside the "pre-Alpha" woods.

What there is to cheer, I don't know: we have right here the admission that the game was released a decade before it was ready. It is staggering. What there is to celebrate, I don't know either.

quote:


Especially exciting is the mentioning in the April update of a separate AI forum and moving the AI discussion threads there. Sounds very promising! [:)]


I agree about this, too: the promise of chasing an unobtainable goal (an AI for MWIF, with all its own trainload of discussions/bug chasing and beta-patches/hotfixes) instead of finishing the implementation of missing optional rules and half-map scenarios - so to have, at least, a finished MP game.

Today marks the day when I'm formally considering MWIF a total loss of 150 Euro. I'm uninstalling it. I'll play the Collector's Edition (which, when I bought it, was surprisingly complete) on VASSAL and good riddance to this farce.


Each to their own I guess.
I have anxiously awaited MWIF since CWIF was announced for 1999. I have come back once every year or so to check the playability of the game and I am happy to say that Steve has made a close to RL-experience. Sure there are bugs now and then but they few and far between. In the 4 games I have played/am playing since I came back there has only been one gamebreaking bug (which Ronnie hacked his way through) and a few that we could make our way through.
There are some optionals that I would like to have but there are enough to make interesting choices in the beginning of the game.

I do agree that an AI sounds like a far-reaching goal that may not be attainable but I read the threads and get inspiration for my strategy so it is not all a loss.
I have felt like the it was money lost at times as well but now I feel like celebrating, this is almost everything I have hoped for and more.

My list of wishes includes
- PBEM functionality with possibility to generate reports for AAR-posting
- Guards banner armies and Isolated supply
- A smoother way of working with the convoys, it is a hassle sometimes

Netplay and AI are not high on my list of priorities but I totally understand that this is Steves vision and that is cool with me.



Jagdtiger14 -> RE: AI on the horizon (4/12/2020 7:16:35 AM)

I am a veteran WiF player...going on 20 years now. Have been to several cons both in Michigan as well as Germany. I have played some of the best in the world (Andrew Rader). This game is completely playable. I can recommend it to any veteran WiF players, and I am satisfied that my $100 was well spent even with an unfinished product. That being said, I have absolutely NO interest in Netplay or AI. I could care less if AI is implemented. I understand AI is an interest of Steve's, but for me I don't care. What I do care about are seeing the all the options being programmed as well as the scenarios. Once those are completed, this game is a finished product as far as I am concerned.



Ian R -> RE: AI on the horizon (4/12/2020 3:04:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

I am a veteran WiF player...going on 20 years now. Have been to several cons both in Michigan as well as Germany. I have played some of the best in the world (Andrew Rader). This game is completely playable. I can recommend it to any veteran WiF players, and I am satisfied that my $100 was well spent even with an unfinished product. That being said, I have absolutely NO interest in Netplay or AI. I could care less if AI is implemented. I understand AI is an interest of Steve's, but for me I don't care. What I do care about are seeing the all the options being programmed as well as the scenarios. Once those are completed, this game is a finished product as far as I am concerned.




I am happy to see the AI getting some renewed priority, I would like to see that more than netplay.

YMMV.



davidachamberlain -> RE: AI on the horizon (4/12/2020 6:56:36 PM)

It might be worth having Steve set up an updated priority list for feedback.

Though I would really like to Netplay for 4 players, I would rather see the remaining single map scenarios followed by optional rules.

I see some value to AI, but expect that will be a long road that will likely require a technology refresh to get there with anything near acceptable performance.

Dave



warspite1 -> RE: AI on the horizon (4/12/2020 7:05:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: davidachamberlain

It might be worth having Steve set up an updated priority list for feedback.

Though I would really like to Netplay for 4 players, I would rather see the remaining single map scenarios followed by optional rules.

I see some value to AI, but expect that will be a long road that will likely require a technology refresh to get there with anything near acceptable performance.

Dave
warspite1

I don't see how an AI can work if convoy routing remains such a pain. The AI could perhaps come with a bonus so that the AI always receives a certain number of points regardless of the convoys.

As for priority the last of the actual rules should be coded (thinking specifically about the USSR/Japan I don't know if there are any others) then the optionals then the two map scenarios.

I think there is a strong argument for putting the two map scenarios at the top of this list. So many people seem overwhelmed by the Global Campaign (either or both of the convoys and naval rules). Forget Barbarossa and Guadalcanal, they are training scenarios. The two map scenarios would help ease a newb into the game while playing real MWIF.



RFalvo69 -> RE: AI on the horizon (4/12/2020 8:55:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: davidachamberlain

It might be worth having Steve set up an updated priority list for feedback.


We already had it.

Three years ago I posted this.

My post caused some reactions. There is no need to summarise them all (almost all of them turned out to be delusional hot air). However, we also got a list of promises and a roadmap from Matrix; yeah, promises, because almost nothing that was promised in this post from 2017 did materialise by 2020 - the only exception being a more stable netplay.

[The answer, BTW, contains an interesting line:

Thousands of issues have been resolved over the past few years, but despite that, much more work remains to be done.

I.e. The first open admission by Matrix that the game was released for full price years away from being finished.]

Factually, a summary of what "changed" in all these years of sub-meta patches/stray-hotfixes galore is surprisingly very brief:

Missing optional rules:
2013: None
2017: None.
2020: 1 (one) was implemented ("Kamikazes") and in need with its own train of fixes and subpatches. Regarding the rest, seven years from the publication, more than one third of them are still unimplemented.

Missing Half-Map Scenarios:
2013: None.
2017: None.
2020: None.

Bugs:
2013: A ****load.
2017: If this hotpatch doesn't make your computer to explode, we can turn it into the next beta-patch!
2020: If this hotpatch works, we can turn it into the next beta-patch!

About the very basic way to apologise by saying "We are sorry, we dropped the ball, here is at the very least a refund in form of a coupon":
2013: Don't be silly
2017: Don't be silly.
2020: Don't be silly.

Regarding the roadmap posted by Matrix three years ago. It is in the link. It shows all the items that should have been completed before starting the work on the AI. Yes, we all know the value of this fiasco's promises (32°F). Yet, just try to follow it. Try at least to maintain a facade.

And what happens instead? YO, DUDES! IN SEVEN YEARS WE IMPLEMENTED ONE OPTIONAL RULE! NOW LET'S GO ON THIS WILD GOOSE CHASE FOR AN AI!!

This is the straw who finally broke my camel's back. I can understand how MWiF is the albatross dangling from Matrix's neck. What I can't condone is open, sheer irresponsibility.

Oh! I almost forgot! The latest third-party beta-patch for War in the Pacific: AE, by MichaelM, was downloaded, as of this writing, 4836 times. The latest hot-patch for MWiF was downloaded 65 times. I struggle to understand what the difference between these two games could be. Feel free to write your answer here. I'm open to ideas.

Dear MWiF, good riddance. Don't worry, I'll survive. Have fun.



jesperpehrson -> RE: AI on the horizon (4/12/2020 9:30:26 PM)

Bye RFalvo69. Your constructive comments will be sorely missed I am sure.



RFalvo69 -> RE: AI on the horizon (4/12/2020 9:35:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jesperpehrson

Bye RFalvo69. Your constructive comments will be sorely missed I am sure.


No, they never were and they wont. Feel free to believe that yours will.



warspite1 -> RE: AI on the horizon (4/12/2020 9:37:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jesperpehrson

Bye RFalvo69. Your constructive comments will be sorely missed I am sure.
warspite1

[:)]



Centuur -> RE: AI on the horizon (4/13/2020 10:50:34 AM)

The missing non-optional rules (especially the one regarding neutrality pacts) are more important to me.

The half map scenario's and more optional rules I would like to see too, before the AI.

If only because the AI needs to be able to handle those too...

The number of bugs remaining is something I like to see too. There are still a couple around which need fixing, especially those which are important to production planning (which still isn't running according to the rulebook, especially when there are a lot of trade agreements in the game and Admiral Dönitz SUB's makes the convoys a mess at the end of the turn)...



Ian R -> RE: AI on the horizon (4/13/2020 12:35:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

snip ...

Dear MWiF, good riddance. Don't worry, I'll survive. Have fun.


That was a quality rant.

I can only say that the game is quite functional, and playing a solo game during lockdown has been worthwhile.

I will probably put aside for a while after this, but at some point I'll get back to it.



Orm -> RE: AI on the horizon (4/13/2020 12:57:11 PM)

I do not think priorities has changed. peskpesk, and I, started to look on how the AIO would handle strategic bombing priorities. And that made peskpesk request that the AI threads should be spiked on top to easier access. Steve was kind enough to create a special sub-forum for it instead.

peskpesk has made preparations for how the AIO should handle things for years. [&o]

That real life world events has made an increased amount time available, for some of us, to ponder on the AIO more than before should in no way be interpreted as a shift in focus.

I suggest you check the monthly reports instead to see if there is a shift in focus.




Ian R -> RE: AI on the horizon (4/13/2020 1:01:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

I do not think priorities has changed. peskpesk, and I, started to look on how the AIO would handle strategic bombing priorities. And that made peskpesk request that the AI threads should be spiked on top to easier access. Steve was kind enough to create a special sub-forum for it instead.

peskpesk has made preparations for how the AIO should handle things for years. [&o]

That real life world events has made an increased amount time available, for some of us, to ponder on the AIO more than before should in no way be interpreted as a shift in focus.

I suggest you check the monthly reports instead to see if there is a shift in focus.





So - business as usual?



rkr1958 -> RE: AI on the horizon (4/14/2020 4:47:07 PM)

MWiF is a GREAT game in it's own right.

Is MWiF perfect, well no, I don't think any game out there is perfect. But, it's fun, it's mostly stable and bug free. Also, for those who wish to learn, any critical bugs encountered (at most 1 per game) can readily be overcome by a smart workaround or by a little creative game editing.

By the way, let's talk about perfection for a moment. I pose this to those folks who play the paper and cardboard or Vassal version of WiF. hHas your interpretation of WiF rules been execute perfectly during any game of WiF? I'm no longer surprised when very experienced WiF players who's playing MWiF find out that they've been playing some rule in WiF wrong all these years.

I remember some discussion a few years back about the absent of isolation reorganization and how that person argued its absence invalidate the game for him. I said at the time that if this optional rule was so important to me that I'd find a way to implement it. Guess what, this rule can be implement about as easily as it can be with the paper and cardboard or vassal version of WiF.

In summary, instead of bellyaching about how I got ripped off, I decided to jump into MWiF over 6-years ago, learn and play it, but mostly have many/many hours of enjoyment with it, and I haven't regretted a moment. Not to mention the folks on this forum that I've met because of it. That alone is worth the price of admission.

Now with all that said I feel that an AI for MWiF is not feasible at best, impossible at worst, for any but the simpler scenarios. In my opinion, the best use of additional development time would be on coding the missing optional rules and half-map scenarios. Also while I'm at it, I might as well ask for a revised and easier to use convoy/production interface that gives me the option to set production and routes they way I want them provided that my way if feasible given trade agreements.



jtcourtne -> RE: AI on the horizon (4/15/2020 2:04:34 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

Agreed. Seven years after the game was published we are almost outside the "pre-Alpha" woods.

What there is to cheer, I don't know: we have right here the admission that the game was released a decade before it was ready. It is staggering. What there is to celebrate, I don't know either.


I agree about this, too: the promise of chasing an unobtainable goal (an AI for MWIF, with all its own trainload of discussions/bug chasing and beta-patches/hotfixes) instead of finishing the implementation of missing optional rules and half-map scenarios - so to have, at least, a finished MP game.

Today marks the day when I'm formally considering MWIF a total loss of 150 Euro. I'm uninstalling it. I'll play the Collector's Edition (which, when I bought it, was surprisingly complete) on VASSAL and good riddance to this farce.


I shake my head.

The 1st edition of WiF was released 35 years ago. How many editions and further development was required to reach the current state and how much investment in time and money made by players was invalidated with each release? "Wallet in Flames", indeed.

Second point: considering the amount of man-hours that have gone into CWiF/MWiF, and considering the going rate for experienced developers, and finally taking into consideration that development has not stopped, any amount of money that *anybody* paid for a copy of MWiF was a serious bargain.

Finally, when I look at all of the vitriol and nastiness that has been directed over the years at what was pursued as a labor of love -- over a friggin' game, no less -- it says a great deal about Steve's character that he hasn't walked away from this project a long, long time ago.



pzgndr -> RE: AI on the horizon (4/15/2020 4:58:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jtcourtne
Finally, when I look at all of the vitriol and nastiness that has been directed over the years at what was pursued as a labor of love -- over a friggin' game, no less -- it says a great deal about Steve's character that he hasn't walked away from this project a long, long time ago.


Ditto for Empires in Arms. It's just a game, dudes, abide. No cause for any vitriol or nastiness. For MWiF, I continue to patiently wait for the half-map scenarios and then AI. It's all good...



gw15 -> RE: AI on the horizon (4/16/2020 5:25:20 PM)

"Wallet in Flames". LOL, that's funny.



AxelNL -> RE: AI on the horizon (4/16/2020 8:37:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

MWiF is a GREAT game in it's own right.

Is MWiF perfect, well no, I don't think any game out there is perfect. But, it's fun, it's mostly stable and bug free. Also, for those who wish to learn, any critical bugs encountered (at most 1 per game) can readily be overcome by a smart workaround or by a little creative game editing.

By the way, let's talk about perfection for a moment. I pose this to those folks who play the paper and cardboard or Vassal version of WiF. hHas your interpretation of WiF rules been execute perfectly during any game of WiF? I'm no longer surprised when very experienced WiF players who's playing MWiF find out that they've been playing some rule in WiF wrong all these years.

I remember some discussion a few years back about the absent of isolation reorganization and how that person argued its absence invalidate the game for him. I said at the time that if this optional rule was so important to me that I'd find a way to implement it. Guess what, this rule can be implement about as easily as it can be with the paper and cardboard or vassal version of WiF.

In summary, instead of bellyaching about how I got ripped off, I decided to jump into MWiF over 6-years ago, learn and play it, but mostly have many/many hours of enjoyment with it, and I haven't regretted a moment. Not to mention the folks on this forum that I've met because of it. That alone is worth the price of admission.

Now with all that said I feel that an AI for MWiF is not feasible at best, impossible at worst, for any but the simpler scenarios. In my opinion, the best use of additional development time would be on coding the missing optional rules and half-map scenarios. Also while I'm at it, I might as well ask for a revised and easier to use convoy/production interface that gives me the option to set production and routes they way I want them provided that my way if feasible given trade agreements.


I fully agree, and I am also very happy that in this Corona time Netplay works. And indeed - already had 3 times this week where the game was right whileI thought it was wrong.
So a full +1 for me.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: AI on the horizon (4/18/2020 8:31:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AxelNL


quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

MWiF is a GREAT game in it's own right.

Is MWiF perfect, well no, I don't think any game out there is perfect. But, it's fun, it's mostly stable and bug free. Also, for those who wish to learn, any critical bugs encountered (at most 1 per game) can readily be overcome by a smart workaround or by a little creative game editing.

By the way, let's talk about perfection for a moment. I pose this to those folks who play the paper and cardboard or Vassal version of WiF. hHas your interpretation of WiF rules been execute perfectly during any game of WiF? I'm no longer surprised when very experienced WiF players who's playing MWiF find out that they've been playing some rule in WiF wrong all these years.

I remember some discussion a few years back about the absent of isolation reorganization and how that person argued its absence invalidate the game for him. I said at the time that if this optional rule was so important to me that I'd find a way to implement it. Guess what, this rule can be implement about as easily as it can be with the paper and cardboard or vassal version of WiF.

In summary, instead of bellyaching about how I got ripped off, I decided to jump into MWiF over 6-years ago, learn and play it, but mostly have many/many hours of enjoyment with it, and I haven't regretted a moment. Not to mention the folks on this forum that I've met because of it. That alone is worth the price of admission.

Now with all that said I feel that an AI for MWiF is not feasible at best, impossible at worst, for any but the simpler scenarios. In my opinion, the best use of additional development time would be on coding the missing optional rules and half-map scenarios. Also while I'm at it, I might as well ask for a revised and easier to use convoy/production interface that gives me the option to set production and routes they way I want them provided that my way if feasible given trade agreements.


I fully agree, and I am also very happy that in this Corona time Netplay works. And indeed - already had 3 times this week where the game was right whileI thought it was wrong.
So a full +1 for me.

I have been debugging interception combat for the past week and the code permitted the player to use submarines to initiate naval combat even though the subs were not included in the combat. Rather than spending time trying to 'fix' this, I decided to look it up in the rules, and sure enough there is a line of text in RAC that specifically permits subs to be used to initiate combat even though they are not included in the combat. Too many rules to keep them all straight in your head!



alexvand -> RE: AI on the horizon (4/22/2020 7:45:40 PM)

Steve, keep up the great work! I love this game.



Omnius -> RE: AI on the horizon (4/24/2020 6:28:44 PM)

@RFalvo69 - Name me a game that isn't released prematurely? I'd rather see oil tankers and the rest of the optional rules get programmed before an AI. Oil tankers are the key to getting the convoy snafu sorted out. Sorry but the AI really won't be properly programmable until Steve gets all of the optional rules done. Besides this game is just way too complex for an Artificial Ignorance to handle. Perhaps if we all had Cray supercomputers on our desks with IBM giving us a massive Big Blue style AI programming project like they did for chess then we'd really have an AI worth waiting for. Otherwise the AI for this game is the last priority for me!



ezzler -> RE: AI on the horizon (4/25/2020 10:16:11 PM)

AI? GOD NO!

I'd just like to be able to ship some resoursce once in a while. You know. The first time. Not the fifth attempt.

i so wish that the convoy rules were never implemented. And a much, much simple system put in place.

i can't bear to fire the game up any more. And have the UK building less than Italy.

Though what i really want is the western scenario. I don't want to fight the china war. Not solo.



RFalvo69 -> RE: AI on the horizon (4/30/2020 1:50:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Omnius

@RFalvo69 - Name me a game that isn't released prematurely?


A decade prematurely?



76mm -> RE: AI on the horizon (4/30/2020 2:31:53 PM)

Gotta agree with RFalvo on this one...worst game purchase decision I've ever made. I bought it to play the half-map scenarios and--ten years later--they still aren't released. Amazing...

While I salute Steve's dedication after all these years, the fact is that this game was released very very very prematurely. Perhaps some of the veteran WiF players would have been happy to pay $150 (or whatever it was) for what amounted to an alpha product, but there is no way I'd have purchased this game if its true state had been disclosed--which it clearly was not.

I'm glad that some of you are enjoying this game, but the fact is that it should never have been sold in its condition upon release, at least without extensive disclosures.



warspite1 -> RE: AI on the horizon (4/30/2020 3:02:58 PM)

I find the fact that people are still going on about it after 10 years astonishing:

- There are a ton of computer games that were a total waste of money. Probably 99% of them are no longer around for anyone to moan about

- This one remains, being developed by one man and so is open to the brickbats.

- That there was insufficient disclosure, well you may have a point, but go moan to Matrix

- I don't work for Matrix and I don't know the ins and outs of the legal and financial agreement between Matrix, ADG and Steve. But I suspect if this game hadn't come out around the time it did then it may never have seen the light of day.

- $150 for this game as it currently is? Bargain. Absolute bargain. I'm not a massive collector of games, but I've played my fair share. But even the good ones, they come, they get played with and they go. This one? This one will always be THE game to come back to because it is the best war game ever made.

Choice - you can spend $150 on the game as was and now is - or spend nothing because MWIF never got released, and so never be able to play the game again. For me personally, there is not even a decision to be made.

That is not the same for everyone it's true and that's a genuine shame, but it's been 10 years. Time to let it go perhaps?.....



76mm -> RE: AI on the horizon (4/30/2020 3:22:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
I find the fact that people are still going on about it after 10 years astonishing:
***\... but it's been 10 years. Time to let it go perhaps?.....


I'm hardly on this forum every week, month, or year complaining about this game, but when I see people bashing others for complaining about the state of the game, then yes, I feel free to state my opinion as well, sorry if you don't approve.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
- There are a ton of computer games that were a total waste of money. Probably 99% of them are no longer around for anyone to moan about

True, although very few of them cost $150, and many of them were at least playable upon release.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
- That there was insufficient disclosure, well you may have a point, but go moan to Matrix

"May" have a point? [X(] Yeah, been there, Matrix was happy to take my money.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
- $150 for this game as it currently is? Bargain. Absolute bargain.
***
Choice - you can spend $150 on the game as was and now is - or spend nothing because MWIF never got released, and so never be able to play the game again. For me personally, there is not even a decision to be made.

You are clearly one of those happy to have paid $150 for an alpha product, and I'm genuinely glad that you had the opportunity to do so and enjoy the game. But that doesn't mean that buyers such as myself should not have been informed about the state of the game--there is no way that I would have bought it.



warspite1 -> RE: AI on the horizon (4/30/2020 3:38:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

Matrix was happy to take my money.

But that doesn't mean that buyers such as myself should not have been informed about the state of the game--there is no way that I would have bought it.
warspite1

Exactly, wouldn't you be best off taking it up with Matrix?

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

I feel free to state my opinion as well, sorry if you don't approve.

warspite1

It's not disapproval. It's genuine surprise - and as said, the only reason you can still come here and have a gripe (whether warranted or not is obviously in the eye of the beholder) is because the game is still here, Steve is still here and trying to get the game to where we all want it.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.65625