3.2 vs 4.4 vs 4.4 downgrade to 3.2

World in Flames is the computer version of Australian Design Group classic board game. World In Flames is a highly detailed game covering the both Europe and Pacific Theaters of Operations during World War II. If you want grand strategy this game is for you.

Moderator: Shannon V. OKeets

Post Reply
User avatar
celebrindal
Posts: 328
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 3:59 pm

3.2 vs 4.4 vs 4.4 downgrade to 3.2

Post by celebrindal »

Well as the title says and hence my confusion, what version to startup and why?

Hi all, been MIA for a few years. Just getting back into things and was thinking of starting either a Hotseat(quasi pbem) game vs a net game and saw a whole ton of discussions around this version stuff.

So since i've been away for awhile I see lots of folks indicating to stick with 3.2 due to bugs etc in 4 that are apparently not being worked on due to AI focus. What I don't understand is why some folks are indicating go with v 4.x and downgrade it, with caveat of editing of the trade agreement section.

What's the consensus, 3.2 or 4.x or 4.x downgraded?

P.S. i'm running v 2.9 ;-)
Order is nothing more than Chaos on a bad day.

Dave
Angeldust2
Posts: 416
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2020 4:24 am

Re: 3.2 vs 4.4 vs 4.4 downgrade to 3.2

Post by Angeldust2 »

There is IMHO no consensus. I would recommend to start a game with 4.4.1 and to downgrade to 3.2.0 only when you encounter a real gamebreaking bug in your actual game. Reasoning is, 4.4.1 allows you to use all the coded optional rules and has certain bugs of 3.2.0 fixed. And who knows, maybe you can avoid in your game by chance any combination of a certain weather in a certain weather zone with certain supply issues, which sends the game in an infinite loop.
User avatar
craigbear
Posts: 769
Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2020 2:30 am
Location: Calgary, Alberta

Re: 3.2 vs 4.4 vs 4.4 downgrade to 3.2

Post by craigbear »

I have never not had to downgrade at some point.

IMHO I think you should just use 3.2 as I am finding it a real hassle to repeatedly see CBV units in the production stream that I cannot place. The artifacts of 4.x still haunt the 3.2 retrofitted version, so why bother.

As an aside, I believe the fix is known for 4.x, and in one of the monthly updates, it was indicated that a hot patch to fix it would be done; however, this has yet to be done after over 2 months. I would be less frustrated if I did not know that it could be fixed in a simple and direct way.
User avatar
juntoalmar
Posts: 684
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 2:08 pm
Location: Valencia
Contact:

Re: 3.2 vs 4.4 vs 4.4 downgrade to 3.2

Post by juntoalmar »

With 3.2 do you mean "Update v03.00.02.00" with date May 14, 2019?

Because I can only download that version and "v04.04.01.00" from "Jan 28, 2022".
(my humble blog about wargames, in spanish) http://cabezadepuente.blogspot.com.es/
User avatar
celebrindal
Posts: 328
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 3:59 pm

Re: 3.2 vs 4.4 vs 4.4 downgrade to 3.2

Post by celebrindal »

What were the big improvement/fixes from 3.2 to 4.4? Do they outweigh the CBV? issue?

I'll be honest, what is the CBV issue?

Thanks.
Order is nothing more than Chaos on a bad day.

Dave
User avatar
Joseignacio
Posts: 2970
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 11:25 am
Location: Madrid, Spain

Re: 3.2 vs 4.4 vs 4.4 downgrade to 3.2

Post by Joseignacio »

juntoalmar wrote: Sat Sep 03, 2022 6:25 am With 3.2 do you mean "Update v03.00.02.00" with date May 14, 2019?

Because I can only download that version and "v04.04.01.00" from "Jan 28, 2022".
Nope, i believe you need to hotpatch "Update v03.00.02.00" to "03.02.XX.YY"
Angeldust2
Posts: 416
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2020 4:24 am

Re: 3.2 vs 4.4 vs 4.4 downgrade to 3.2

Post by Angeldust2 »

celebrindal wrote: Sat Sep 03, 2022 11:42 am What were the big improvement/fixes from 3.2 to 4.4? Do they outweigh the CBV? issue?

I'll be honest, what is the CBV issue?

Thanks.
CBV = City based volunteers
This optional is fully coded in 4.4.1, but not in 3.2.0 . Probably even more important are several naval movement bugs in 3.2.0, which are fixed in 4.4.1 . One is the notorious "if a ship could be potentially intercepted, it cannot continue moving into another sea zone, even if no interception initiated or interception failed" bug.
User avatar
Zovs
Posts: 9174
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 11:02 pm
Location: United States

Re: 3.2 vs 4.4 vs 4.4 downgrade to 3.2

Post by Zovs »

Seems like the developers have been stringing this around for years with these crazy hot patches. Why not just fix stuff and make a release?

I used to read the dev diaries but lost interest after seeing no changes or no progress for months on end.
Image
Beta Tester for: War in the East 1 & 2, WarPlan & WarPlan Pacific, Valor & Victory, Flashpoint Campaigns: Sudden Storm, Computer War In Europe 2
SPWW2 & SPMBT scenario creator
Tester for WDS games
Angeldust2
Posts: 416
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2020 4:24 am

Re: 3.2 vs 4.4 vs 4.4 downgrade to 3.2

Post by Angeldust2 »

I agree, it is very frustrating, that no bug fixes have been released since end of last year. If only the reported bugs could be fixed quickly in the latest hot patch, the game would be be so much easier to recommend to potential new players ...
If the half map scenarios would be finished and the missing optional rules would be finally coded, I would be totally happy and satisfied.
User avatar
rkr1958
Posts: 29603
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:23 am

Re: 3.2 vs 4.4 vs 4.4 downgrade to 3.2

Post by rkr1958 »

Angeldust2 wrote: Sat Sep 03, 2022 3:40 pm Probably even more important are several naval movement bugs in 3.2.0, which are fixed in 4.4.1 . One is the notorious "if a ship could be potentially intercepted, it cannot continue moving into another sea zone, even if no interception initiated or interception failed" bug.
Unless I'm misunderstanding something that bug is a regression bug introduced in 4.2.3.2 and not present in 3.2.0. Now that regression bug was fixed in 4.4.1 but a fatal regression bug that (occasionally) causes the game to apparently going into a infinite supply calculation loop under certain weather conditions showed up.

One other reason 3.2.0 gets my vote over 4.X is that supply calculation times under certain conditions can slow to a frustrating grind that I don't see in 3.2.0.
Ronnie
User avatar
rkr1958
Posts: 29603
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 10:23 am

Re: 3.2 vs 4.4 vs 4.4 downgrade to 3.2

Post by rkr1958 »

Angeldust2 wrote: Sun Sep 04, 2022 2:07 pm I agree, it is very frustrating, that no bug fixes have been released since end of last year. If only the reported bugs could be fixed quickly in the latest hot patch, the game would be be so much easier to recommend to potential new players ...
If the half map scenarios would be finished and the missing optional rules would be finally coded, I would be totally happy and satisfied.
State of the Game and Future Plans, as of November 2017
Erik Rutins wrote: Mon Nov 27, 2017 7:54 pm Thank you all for your patience and support of Matrix Games' World in Flames (MWIF) over the years since release. We hope you have enjoyed the game so far and that you will check back with us as we continue to support this release. Steve and I greatly appreciate the community's involvement through bug reports, suggestions and other feedback, both through the beta test program and through the official updates. Your support and feedback has been critical in getting MWIF to the point where it is today and we can only complete the rest of the our shared goals with your continued involvement.

Our Commitment to You

We are committed to continuing to support MWIF, which includes addressing bug reports, completing NetPlay and adding additional optional rules and scenarios. You can find more on our future plans a bit further down.

The State of the Game


Thousands of issues have been resolved over the past few years, but despite that, much more work remains to be done. We recently released the promised new official update, which included an additional 300+ fixes, focused on all modes of play, but including 50+ NetPlay fixes as well. We hope that you find this update to be a significant improvement for solitaire as well as NetPlay, but it is not yet the "NetPlay Complete" update we were hoping to release this year.

After spending a significant amount of time this year during the process leading up to this official update trying to make sure that the solitaire game was made as stable as possible, we will now shift our focus back primarily to NetPlay. The NetPlay issues list has been shrinking and many of the remaining issues are less frequently encountered than those that have already been fixed. We plan to have a new series of internal and public beta updates to progress NetPlay to the point of an official "NetPlay Complete" update.

NetPlay, Our Next Priority


We have been working towards this for far longer than we ever expected and it has seemed to be a Sisyphean task at times, partially thanks to the incredible complexity of MWIF and how fixing one issue can at times uncover several new ones, but based on the progress we've seen to date and the remaining issues on our list, the goal does finally seem within reach. We are aiming for an April 2018 "NetPlay Complete" release candidate, along with additional fixes for all modes of play that come up between now and then. We expect another update later in 2018 with fixes for any additional NetPlay issues that arise from testing the "NetPlay Complete" update.

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. The "Core Rule Set" means that the AI will be designed to work with a core set of fixed optional rules, rather than supporting all possible optional rules variations. Needless to say, this will be a big job and for a game this complex no AI will ever be as good as a human player, but we know players love to have an AI to practice against and use as a learning aid and we don't intend to leave MWIF as our only release without an AI opponent. This is also a feature that Steve is very interested in and very knowledgeable about, plus he has already put in place much of the necessary framework.

5. Additional Optional Rules Expansion

We will look at the remaining optional rules not implemented as part of #2 above and decide which can be implemented, possibly as part of the same expansion which includes the AI, possibly as another project. The list to choose from here is as follows:
59. Convoys in Flames (76)
60. Recruitment limits (16)
61. Surprised zones of control (20)
62. Bounce combat (22)
63. V weapons (23)
64. Atomic bombs (23)
65. Frogmen (24)
66. Hitler's war (49)
68. En route interception (51)
69. Limited aircraft interception (57)
70. Flying bombs (59)
71. Ukraine (62)
72. Intelligence (63)
73. Japanese command conflict (64)
74. Partisan HQs (72)
75. Oil tankers (76)
76. Naval offensive chit (a variation on the optional rule for offensive chits)
That post was from almost 5 years ago ... :(
Ronnie
User avatar
Joseignacio
Posts: 2970
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 11:25 am
Location: Madrid, Spain

Re: 3.2 vs 4.4 vs 4.4 downgrade to 3.2

Post by Joseignacio »

Zovs wrote: Sun Sep 04, 2022 1:30 pm Seems like the developers have been stringing this around for years with these crazy hot patches. Why not just fix stuff and make a release?

I used to read the dev diaries but lost interest after seeing no changes or no progress for months on end.
This way they have not a handful of beta testers but all clients working as such. It provides much more feedback. And it is free as well as the former.
Post Reply

Return to “World in Flames”