AI on the horizon

[AxelNL]

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]

ORIGINAL: AxelNL

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]

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

[Omnius]

@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]

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]

ORIGINAL: Omnius

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

A decade prematurely?

[76mm]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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?

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.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: warspite1
Exactly, wouldn't you be best off taking it up with Matrix?

In hindsight, I should have demanded a refund immediately, but for the first two or three years I actually believed that the half-map scenarios would be released "soon" (ever?), and was willing to wait. But IIRC those who did ask for refunds were refused.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

ORIGINAL: warspite1
Exactly, wouldn't you be best off taking it up with Matrix?

In hindsight, I should have demanded a refund immediately, but for the first two or three years I actually believed that the half-map scenarios would be released "soon" (ever?), and was willing to wait. But IIRC those who did ask for refunds were refused.

warspite1

If its any consolation - and of course it isn't - I completely agree with you on the 2-map scenarios. and I've been saying this from the word go. It just seems to me to be a no-brainer. The game is complex, its for grognards and so for some, battling with the convoy system or the naval rules for example, are things they could do without. It can be overwhelming and can turn people off. The 2-map scenarios allow the introduction of a proper MWIF game (I completely discount the training scenarios that are Guadalcanal and Barbarossa) while keeping things fun and manageable. They can appeal to naval enthusiasts (Pacific) or land warfare fans (Europe).

That increases enjoyment, feedback and - above all else - sales! But for some reason NetPlay appears to have been the focus and these 2-map scenarios have got lost amongst the efforts to get NetPlay working (and bugs crushed).

[pzgndr]

ORIGINAL: 76mm
While I salute Steve's dedication after all these years, the fact is that this game was released very very very prematurely...
the fact is that it should never have been sold in its condition upon release, at least without extensive disclosures.

I am not convinced it is even possible to release a PC version of a complicated and complex boardgame such as World in Flames or Empires in Arms and come anywhere near veteran players' expectations for release to be perfect. When I took on EIA code development several years ago now it was immediately obvious how painful it all is. You can read my comments on the EIA forum.

I would agree that Matrix could consider some alternative business model to support "premature" releases known to have significant bugs and missing features. But is the game playable enough for some enjoyment and for gathering necessary feedback for bug fixes and feature enhancements/improvements? I've also been on the playtester side of game development for several games, and I know full well there are significant limitations in what playtesters can find for a developer to fix prior to a magical release date, and then players raise their own issues. It's tough. It's practically impossible!

But yeah, maybe Matrix could sell "early release" versions. Then bump up the price as features are added or charge separately for major updates. I don't know. Avalon Hill and SPI tried changing their business models and it didn't work too well for them. I just try to keep up and enjoy playing what I can when I can.

[RFalvo69]

ORIGINAL: warspite1
Steve is still here and trying to get the game to where we all want it.

What follows was posted on this forum three years ago by Erik Rutins of Matrix Games:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins
Once we have evidence that NetPlay for 2 Players is indeed at last working as expected, we plan to proceed with the following in priority order:

Future Plans

1. Additional Bug Fixes
- This will be an ongoing effort, focused on any serious issues that arise as well as areas of the game that still need more attention. Each update, including the NetPlay updates, will continue to include fixes for every issue we can fit in.

2. Low Risk Optional Rules
- These are the rules we are planning to include in this set:
53. City based volunteers (67)
54. Isolated reorganization limits (47)
55. Kamikazes (60)
56. Naval supply units (69)
57. Guard banner armies (70)
58. Rough seas (75)
67. USSR-Japan compulsory peace (50)

3. Additional Scenarios
- This means the two half map scenarios we promised to complete.

Once we reach this point, we would consider the original MWIF feature and content complete, with ongoing support after this point focused on bug fixes and interface polish.

4. AI Expansion (Core Rule Set)
- This means implementing a working AI opponent for solitaire play.

Bottom line: in three years we got one (1) item: the Kamikazes Optional Rule.

True, the program enables you to follow the rules with minimal bookkeeping - except when it doesn't (convoys...) True, playing it face to face or via VASSAL forces you to - gasp! - learn the rules - which is what almost every wargamer knows how to do since the dawn of wargames. And if you misread a rule (something commonly accepted) you can fix it without waiting for a patch.

I'm sorry, it is indefensible.

I would really know what Matrix was thinking when they looked at this program and said "It is ready to be published!" - what they were looking at, I mean.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: warspite1
...I completely agree with you on the 2-map scenarios. and I've been saying this from the word go. It just seems to me to be a no-brainer...It can be overwhelming and can turn people off. The 2-map scenarios allow the introduction of a proper MWIF game (I completely discount the training scenarios that are Guadalcanal and Barbarossa) while keeping things fun and manageable.

Yup. When the game first came out I tried the full game but was definitely overwhelmed, not helped by the bugs prevalent in the game at the time and my almost complete lack of interest in the War in the Pacific. I tried the Barbarossa scenario a couple of times and found it very...meh. So I decided to wait for the half-map scenarios...and wait...and wait. I gave up some time ago now, but really don't understand why they weren't something like a top priority.

ORIGINAL: pzgndr
I am not convinced it is even possible to release a PC version of a complicated and complex boardgame such as World in Flames or Empires in Arms and come anywhere near veteran players' expectations for release to be perfect. When I took on EIA code development several years ago now it was immediately obvious how painful it all is. You can read my comments on the EIA forum.

Yes, I've got EiA as well, and am actually playing a PBEM game and have installed probably, what, twenty of your patches? Thanks for your work! The big difference for me between WiF and EiA is that I paid $150 for WiF thinking it was a complete product, and paid $15 for EiA (on sale) knowing that it had issues. [EDIT:] And of course EiA has a workable built-in system for PBEM (even if it is kind of a pain to use).

I had never played WiF or EiA as boardgames, so wasn't a veteran or even a fan of either, but am always looking for a good game and had heard very good things about both, so was willing to give both a try. But at this point I will never, ever, ever, buy a board game conversion (actually, any game) from Matrix without seeing overwhelming evidence on the forums (and formal game reviews, etc.), that the game is worth buying.

[76mm]

Not to beat a dead horse, but I wanted to mention another reason why I'm a still a bit bitter about this game: the high price was one thing, but maybe the main thing is that I invested a huge amount of time in learning the rules, watching tutorials, etc, all in preparation for the promised half-map scenarios which were never delivered.

Unlike most other wargames, even complex ones like WitE, WiF is just not a game that you can just pick up and play without understanding the rules. So I read that damn 3 volume rulebook 2-3 times--a huge amount of time--and even then had to watch the video tutorials to learn how to play, all for naught.

[rkr1958]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

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.

I'm confused? I paid $99, which was full price and included the 3 hardbound books, for my copy a couple of months after it was released. Why do folks keep saying they paid $150? Why the price discrepancy?

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: rkr1958
I'm confused? I paid $99, which was full price and included the 3 hardbound books...

It's been a long time, I might be confused myself but I'm pretty sure that the price was well over $100 when I bought it shortly after release. One of the major issues was shipping for the hardcover books (which I didn't want in the first place, but they were a mandatory purchase), which could add a huge amount to the total price, depending on where you had them shipped to.

Shipping is shipping, but this was the only computer game I've ever bought that required the purchase of very expensive (from a shipping perspective) hard cover manuals. Never again.

Also, I don't quite recall at this point, but Matrix might have dropped the price shortly after release after all of the complaints about the state of the game. But not sure about that after all these years.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

ORIGINAL: 76mm

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.

I'm confused? I paid $99, which was full price and included the 3 hardbound books, for my copy a couple of months after it was released. Why do folks keep saying they paid $150? Why the price discrepancy?

warspite1

I just followed what was written previously. I can't recall how much I paid - although a got a small discount for doing the naval write-ups. Yeah it was in the region of £100 and then there was the quite expensive cost of the books. I say expensive - frankly I'd have paid double the price for those beautiful works of art [&o]

[Centuur]

Personally, I think that both sides here have written things which I agree on. But it's Matrix which is responsible for the release of the game at the time.

Surely, some will be a disappointed by how long it takes to get things done. I'm disappointed too. But we're in a niche market and there are simply no resources available to get things done faster.

But that doesn't mean I don't have fun with the game.