ETA on the Patch

[Curious]

PR word games are fun, aren't they.  Some might call it "spin doctoring".  Just call "patches" "updates" and call new versions "service packs".  That's what M$ does and they make billions of $'s.  So they must be doing something right.  But none of these "word games" get the revised software to the customer any faster -- so who cares?
 
CB

[Gil R.]

Addressing Feltan, Erik, and others,

This "patch" contains a combination of fixes and new features, and I'm also of the opinion that since people call it a patch that's what we should call it, even if I recognize the accuracy of Feltan's points. It has been suggested by several people that we should have fixed known problems first, and then comes out with a features patch separately, but people forget that not all of the problems were reported at the same time -- so, we (= Eric the programmer) would fix a few glitches and then add some new widely requested features, and then more glitches would be reported and fixed, etc. etc. There was never really a point when we had reached a clear breaking point at which we should have stopped adding to the patch and gotten it out there. So I think we're doing the right thing combining fixes and features -- especially since the game is playable and none of the fixes is of overwhelming urgency, in my opinion. (Yes, fighting multiple battles against lone brigades stupidly routed by the AI right in the path of an army is irksome, but the game still works; and yes, people want the Union to be much richer than the Confederacy and are waiting for the new scenario, but a greater disparity can be approached by resetting the power levels; and so forth.)

From a p.r. point of view, my only regret is giving a false (in retrospect) expectation that the patch would be done some time ago. I had originally predicted "early Januaryish" -- a phrase which might be to this forum what "Mission Accomplished" is to the Iraq war -- but that was before it became clear that several more things had to be added to the patch. Perhaps if I had never made that original prediction people wouldn't be under the impression that the patch is overdue, when in reality patches take as long as they take and therefore by definition it's not overdue. That, I think, is the greater p.r. issue.

Anyway, we're getting close. Yesterday Eric fixed a new issue that had been caused by a recent change, and another "bug" I had mentioned here or on another thread turns out to have been caused by my starting a game using beta-patch 1.6 and continuing it under 1.6.2, and therefore isn't a bug. The key things are still fixing a new PBEM bug caused by the replay function and then making sure that the strategic and tactical AI's are functioning properly in light of all of these changes. Plus I still need to figure out which special abilities Gen. Heth should teach his troops...

[fortdick]

Gil R>:

Keep doing what you are doing. I appreciate your efforts to give everyone the game they want, even if it takes a little longer.

As far as Heth, maybe he can teach his troops how to interpret orders and attack piecemeal. Those might be his best attributes. [:)]

[christof139]

I eagerly await the new patch, and realize it involves a lot of work, having made mods myself in the past, but no hard programming for me since I an not a C++ nor AF+4 person (AF+4 = Annie Fannie + 4, what it means I have no idea, I just like acronyms and Annie Fannie, can't determine if the 4 = something related to being only P4 compastible or Annie's 4 bumps, oh well, I'll never know I guess). [8|]

Chris

[Johnus]

Dear Gil R:

I don't mind so much that a prediction in timing was off. This is a game. No one dies if a patch is never issued. The reason (reasons) for the said delay is the number of things added and added and added. Sounds somewhat silly, me complaining about the number of improvements you guys are adding to the game, but that is exactly the point. Someone should have (six weeks ago) drawn the line somewhere on what to include. Otherwise you could literally add improvements indefinitely and the testers would be the only people to see them.

Anyway good luck with it and I hope to see it soon.

[Titanwarrior89]

Take your time guys on the patch.  No rush here.[;)]

[MorningDew]

ORIGINAL: Titanwarrior89

Take your time guys on the patch.  No rush here.[;)]

Ditto. As someone aptly pointed out, anyone screaming about the time a patch takes to release needs to get a life or job. Yes, a business might be upset at the amount of time, but I hope no one is using FoF to run a business. The way some people react to the time it takes to deliver quality software, you would think their main source of income was down. Hmmmmmm.....

[Dasara II]

I have been skipping the detailed combat as I did with Crown of Glory, but as the new patch/upgrade seems to have some detailed combat enhancements I thought that I would give it a go in my current game.

And it was great, much, much better than Crown of Glory and brings back fond memories of "American civil war generals 2" [:)]

I find myself fighting the big battles in Detailed combat now and really adds so much more personality to each brigade.

I can't wait for the patch, but I am having a lot of fun leading my boys on the battlefield.

By the way, I remember reading that the new patch/upgrade will have more causalities fro each combat encounter. I hope so, maybe the battles won't always go on for so long if that is the case. Time is main reason I can not play more detailed combat but sometimes it it worth it to get some free artillery [:D]

[decaturkev]

I find the detailed combat the most intriguing, and variable, aspect of the game. I have restored and replayed the same enagagement over and over to diffrerent outcomes each time. Without DC, I find the game somewhat predictable for both sides at any difficuly setting once the nuances of the various upgrade and technology impacts are understood. I wish I could zoom in to greater detail in DC, like CC, to observe the action. It would help if a time/speed control were available as the the reporps seem to come through rapidly. Even better would be to make the FOF DC like CC.

[Drex]

Sounds like you are talking about a separate game here, a tactical ACW game based on the CC engine. or CoI engine.

[Greyhunterlp]

hmm, how to do this without advertizing another game,

what you really want to do in DC is Take Command.

(now if these two games could be bolted together, then we'd be in paridise, but i doubt it would work well.)

[Johnus]

From the thread started December 14,  2006: "We are getting closer to releasing a second patch" . . .
 
I presume we are now even closer.   Anyone willing to risk an ETA.  I only ask because I really want to play this game again.

[Gil R.]

The programming of new features is essentially done (though I think there's still one more info screen to be programmed, though that's something that takes little time). The main thing now is to get detailed battle working the way it should, plus a few tweaks need to be made to the strategic AI (e.g., it's not assigning generals as smartly as it should). We're testing away...

[freeboy]

sounds great, can I edit the sound files? I want to add My favorite army tune, that lovely ballad, you never knew that did u?" Gary Owen"

[Gil R.]

ORIGINAL: freeboy

sounds great, can I edit the sound files? I want to add My favorite army tune, that lovely ballad, you never knew that did u?" Gary Owen"

Yes, you can, though I don't remember how. Somewhere on this forum someone posted info on this some time ago. If you can't find it, just ask in the support forum and Eric will explain what to do. (He's likely to see a posting there sooner than in this thread.)

[Mike13z50]

Hurray!
As in hip-hip, not hurry as in up.[:)]

[hedererp]

Hello,

Reading the impatience for the patch has made me reminisce...

I'm going date myself a bit here, but I can still remember when you had to get a patch via the mail. You sent in a request, with some type of proof of purchase, via (wait for it) the mail (gasp), and then they sent you you're patch via a floppy back in the mail.
If you were lucky you could go by Egghead Computer (are they still around?) and the guy there would give you the patch on a disk you brought in.
That was if you even heard about the patch, cuz there weren't no inner' net. [:D]

Paul

[christof139]

Hello,

Reading the impatience for the patch has made me reminisce...

I'm going date myself a bit here, but I can still remember when you had to get a patch via the mail. You sent in a request, with some type of proof of purchase, via (wait for it) the mail (gasp), and then they sent you you're patch via a floppy back in the mail.
If you were lucky you could go by Egghead Computer (are they still around?) and the guy there would give you the patch on a disk you brought in.
That was if you even heard about the patch, cuz there weren't no inner' net.

Paul

I stayed away from compooters and other push-button electronic gadgets back then, because I always thought they started nuclear wars. Telephones and radios and televisions were bad enough.[&:][8|]

Chris [>:][>:][>:][>:]

[Maurym]

ORIGINAL: hedererp





Hello,

Reading the impatience for the patch has made me reminisce...

I'm going date myself a bit here, but I can still remember when you had to get a patch via the mail. You sent in a request, with some type of proof of purchase, via (wait for it) the mail (gasp), and then they sent you you're patch via a floppy back in the mail.
If you were lucky you could go by Egghead Computer (are they still around?) and the guy there would give you the patch on a disk you brought in.
That was if you even heard about the patch, cuz there weren't no inner' net. [:D]

Paul

I remember those days fondly...first PC game was UMS (Universal Military Simulator); I ran it on my 64kb RAM, 4 MB HD machine...no color DOS 2.something. Played (and replayed) the Battle of Gettysburg till the sun rose.

[Drex]

I had UMS I and II. That was a long time ago.