When?

[rhondabrwn]

As always, a fascinating read!

The spreadsheet really helps to put the scope of this project into perspective too.

Hang in there! We're waiting patiently.

[Sewerlobster]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Player Interface
I added code to track from which carrier a carrier air unit originates when it flies an air mission to a land hex (e.g., a ground strike). When one of these units is aborted, the program returns it to its carrier of origination automatically - which saves the player the trouble of figuring it out. Because a carrier can not be damaged when one of its carrier air units flies those missions, making the return automatic is ok. During naval air combat making the return automatic isn’t possible; since the carrier might have been destroyed in the combat.

Super, a nice little touch. If the programming is straight forward it would be nice to have this for naval air combats that don't result in the loss of a CV.But I suspect you would have done that already if that were the case.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: SewerStarFish

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Player Interface
I added code to track from which carrier a carrier air unit originates when it flies an air mission to a land hex (e.g., a ground strike). When one of these units is aborted, the program returns it to its carrier of origination automatically - which saves the player the trouble of figuring it out. Because a carrier can not be damaged when one of its carrier air units flies those missions, making the return automatic is ok. During naval air combat making the return automatic isn’t possible; since the carrier might have been destroyed in the combat.

Super, a nice little touch. If the programming is straight forward it would be nice to have this for naval air combats that don't result in the loss of a CV.But I suspect you would have done that already if that were the case.

Actually, the beta testers complained about this change. When the carrier air units take losses, consolidating the remaining carrier air units on fewer carriers is much desired.

What I am going to do is add an item to the unit menu so any air unit returning to base can "return from whence it came". I had that on my task list as a possibility and have partially coded it. This will apply to both carrier air units and also land based fighters and bombers. Being able to use two mouse clicks to RTB (bring up unit menu + select menu itme) is better that having to position the mouse and click on a destination hex. And that's assuming you remember where you had originally (oh, so cleverly) positioned the air unit.

[nanorider426]

Hi Steve and thanks for a very interesting report. The spreadsheet is a really nice touch.

I also wish to congratulate you with very few bugs left. I'm really impressed! With less than 250 bugs you are almost there! Let the fun stuff commense. [:D]

[Terminus]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: werwolf
I am waiting since 1999 r may be more. Since now I have seen only the Beta version. Personally I do not think Matrix Games want to develop anything about........

One could think the contrary since the last weeks were quite busy with Steve taking the project.

Froonp, thanks for the vote of confidence. First let me say, I have been waiting since 1996 and I am very happy to now be able to do something to make it happen. I work on this 50 to 60 hours a week. My current phrase about the project is "I continue to push onward, trying to shove this very large elephant down a path that it has refused to travel for over a decade.”

I give David Heath at Matrix Games weekly status reports on things accomplished for the past week and things planned for the next week. As I promised before, I will post monthly summaries of those status reports in the forum. Since this thread has been started, I guess this is as good a place as any. My first report to the forum will be at the end of this week (the end of July). But to answer the question directly, we have MWIF scheduled for release as a download in the spring of 2006.

There are some who say that degree of optimism just proves I am out of my mind. Actually, I am shooting for early spring 2006, but even I concede that depends on a whole lot of things not going wrong. If the date does drift, I will let you know here. In any event, I will be keeping you informed as to progress every month right up to the game's availability.

The more people are involved in these forums, letting me know their opinions and ideas, the better the final product will be. It will also help me finish MWIF faster by preventing me from going down blind alleys and wasting my time dong things wrong and later having to correct them. I thank you all for your support.

If nothing else, I hope Shannon has learned why it's a BAD idea to ever give out release dates other than "tomorrow". This post is from July 27, 2005.

Make no mistake, I don't want to see him fail, but still...

[V22 Osprey]

Damn this is the longest I've ever seen a game in development. I agree with Terminus, that release date he Posted from 2005 is only 4 and half years off.[8|]

I REALLY want this game though. I've even set aside $100 in birthday money to pay for it.(As long as this game has been in development, we all know it's going cost upwards of $100) This looks like the ultimate operational whole world World War II game and I can't wait for it.

[Terminus]

Starcraft II... Duke Nukem For(n)ever... That's two games that took longer...

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: V22 Osprey

Damn this is the longest I've ever seen a game in development. I agree with Terminus, that release date he Posted from 2005 is only 4 and half years off.[8|]

I REALLY want this game though. I've even set aside $100 in birthday money to pay for it.(As long as this game has been in development, we all know it's going cost upwards of $100) This looks like the ultimate operational whole world World War II game and I can't wait for it.

Warspite1

It is the ultimate operational whole World War II game [:)] and the Matrix version is staying as faithful to ADG's boardgame as possible (with a few differences as you would expect).

[V22 Osprey]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Starcraft II... Duke Nukem For(n)ever... That's two games that took longer...

SCII? Nah...that's just Blizzard being Blizzard. They take forever to make anything other than World of Warcraft. Same with Valve. You got me on Duke Nukem Forever though....

[Terminus]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: V22 Osprey

Damn this is the longest I've ever seen a game in development. I agree with Terminus, that release date he Posted from 2005 is only 4 and half years off.[8|]

I REALLY want this game though. I've even set aside $100 in birthday money to pay for it.(As long as this game has been in development, we all know it's going cost upwards of $100) This looks like the ultimate operational whole world World War II game and I can't wait for it.

Warspite1

It is the ultimate operational whole World War II game [:)] and the Matrix version is staying as faithful to ADG's boardgame as possible (with a few differences as you would expect).

If it ever comes out, it'll be interesting to see if it's so big that it's unplayable. I hope not...

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: V22 Osprey

Damn this is the longest I've ever seen a game in development. I agree with Terminus, that release date he Posted from 2005 is only 4 and half years off.[8|]

I REALLY want this game though. I've even set aside $100 in birthday money to pay for it.(As long as this game has been in development, we all know it's going cost upwards of $100) This looks like the ultimate operational whole world World War II game and I can't wait for it.

Warspite1

It is the ultimate operational whole World War II game [:)] and the Matrix version is staying as faithful to ADG's boardgame as possible (with a few differences as you would expect).

If it ever comes out, it'll be interesting to see if it's so big that it's unplayable. I hope not...

Warspite1

That's the sheer genius of the game - you get the whole war, it feels realistic, and yet you get a thoroughly enjoyable, easily playable game. You play WITPAE - different animals I know - but in terms of complexity and micro management, this is nothing like as difficult.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: V22 Osprey

Damn this is the longest I've ever seen a game in development. I agree with Terminus, that release date he Posted from 2005 is only 4 and half years off.[8|]

I REALLY want this game though. I've even set aside $100 in birthday money to pay for it.(As long as this game has been in development, we all know it's going cost upwards of $100) This looks like the ultimate operational whole world World War II game and I can't wait for it.

Warspite1

It is the ultimate operational whole World War II game [:)] and the Matrix version is staying as faithful to ADG's boardgame as possible (with a few differences as you would expect).

If it ever comes out, it'll be interesting to see if it's so big that it's unplayable. I hope not...

One of my primal fears - and something I work at preventing every day.

[coregames]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

That's the sheer genius of the game - you get the whole war, it feels realistic, and yet you get a thoroughly enjoyable, easily playable game. You play WITPAE - different animals I know - but in terms of complexity and micro management, this is nothing like as difficult.

There are board games on the same order of magnitude. The Europa series of games from GDW along with Third Reich and its offshoots might be considered the direct ancestors of WiF. Europa was supposed to be playable as one giant game, although just Fire in the East was monstrous enough in its own right. For playability, Harper's A World at War has the edge. You're right though; for marrying the grand strategic with the operational, all in a way that doesn't make your head spin too much, WiF stands alone, and Steve is pulling out all the stops to keep that unique combination intact for MWiF.

Noise was made a few years back about Matrix adapting AWaW for the computer, but that didn't materialize. I'm surprised someone hasn't picked that project up, given how much simpler it is than WiFFE.

Even if the company that took over from GDW (HMS/GRD) ever finishes Europa and Glory, I can't imagine a computer adaptation. It would probably take longer to play than the war took to fight.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: coregames

ORIGINAL: warspite1

That's the sheer genius of the game - you get the whole war, it feels realistic, and yet you get a thoroughly enjoyable, easily playable game. You play WITPAE - different animals I know - but in terms of complexity and micro management, this is nothing like as difficult.

There are board games on the same order of magnitude. The Europa series of games from GDW along with Third Reich and its offshoots might be considered the direct ancestors of WiF. Europa was supposed to be playable as one giant game, although just Fire in the East was monstrous enough in its own right. For playability, Harper's A World at War has the edge. You're right though; for marrying the grand strategic with the operational, all in a way that doesn't make your head spin too much, WiF stands alone, and Steve is pulling out all the stops to keep that unique combination intact for MWiF.

Noise was made a few years back about Matrix adapting AWaW for the computer, but that didn't materialize. I'm surprised someone hasn't picked that project up, given how much simpler it is than WiFFE.

Even if the company that took over from GDW (HMS/GRD) ever finishes Europa and Glory, I can't imagine a computer adaptation. It would probably take longer to play than the war took to fight.

Warspite1

I don't think Europa and WIF are comparable in that Europa is an operational level game using divisions, brigades - even battalions - with two week turns. I would imagine those who like WITPAE would appreciate Europa. I collect the Europa series, but know that I will almost certainly never play any of them - much less the entire war in Europe once they finally bring all the games out.

I would liken WIF to Avalon Hill's Third Reich or SPI's World War II (ETO and PTO), but consider the former a superior product in every way - better playability, more realism and WIF is just good old fashioned fun to play.

Just my 2 cents. Sorry if moving OT.

[AstroBlues]

My gaming group has played WiF for the last five years and it is one of the best games out there. We use all the add-ons and about all the optional rules and also use DoDIII. The last game we had the USA was pitted against a Axis-Communist takeover of the world.

I hope Steve keeps plugging away at MWiF.

[jjdenver]

I'm not sure what the plan is but I hope there is a "release #1" without AI, and a followup "release #2" with the AI.

I don't believe a competent AI will ever be built for the game so I'd like to see a release w/o AI for all those of us who want to use the game for PBEM.

Cheers

[Terminus]

That's not technically possible. The "AI" doesn't exist in some void apart from the rest of the program, to be clipped on at will.

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

That's not technically possible. The "AI" doesn't exist in some void apart from the rest of the program, to be clipped on at will.

If you read the status reports you'd see that assertion is completely wrong. The program exists and is in the process of bug eradication. The AI has yet to be coded, although a lot of work has been done on set-ups and strategies and the preparation to parse these to interact with the existing code.

[jjdenver]

ORIGINAL: Terminus
That's not technically possible. The "AI" doesn't exist in some void apart from the rest of the program, to be clipped on at will.

I don't understand this statement at all. I'd assume when you start a game you can set some countries to be played by AI. That option would just be disabled and all countries would have to be played by humans.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: jjdenver

ORIGINAL: Terminus
That's not technically possible. The "AI" doesn't exist in some void apart from the rest of the program, to be clipped on at will.

I don't understand this statement at all. I'd assume when you start a game you can set some countries to be played by AI. That option would just be disabled and all countries would have to be played by humans.

No, the AI Opponent is for one side (only).

Building an interface between the AIO and a human to play one side would be a ton of work. And if there were no interface, then the human players would complain constantly that the AIO didn't do what they wanted it to do. I already see that from the beta testers for the small amount of automatic decision making by the program in routing resources to factories.