1.02J preview

[Marshall Ellis]

Hey guys:

The 1.02j should be posted shortly but I wanted to post the release notes for 1.02j for you guys to review:
Apologize for the text formatting but hopefully you can read this pretty easily.
Let me know if you have any questions...

# ID STATUS DESCRIPTION
-------- ----- ------------------ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R192 S3 Fixed in 1.02j Can setup more than 20 factors in Corfu for Russian setup
Game will not advance with >20 factors in Corfu. Changed in new games only!

R240 ME Fixed in 1.02j AI: Fleets not acting in large enough numbers

R241 ME Fixed in 1.02j AI: Fleets not combining in best ports properly enough to defend well.

R242 ME Fixed in 1.02j AI: Fleets making suicide attacks (Need more force in attacks)

R243 ME Fixed in 1.02j AI: Need to improve channel guarding

R244 Fixed in 1.02j St Petersburg is showing to be part of karelia province
This is actually correct. Map was changed to refelect proper provincial borders for new games only!

R246 G16 Fixed in 1.02j Game does not have second Peidmont corps
Fixed in new games only.

R247 G20 Fixed in 1.02j FS income not displayed correctly.

R248 ME Fixed in 1.02j MP1 able to call an MP2 ally to war when MP2 has an enforced peace period with the prospect MP target

R249 S4 Fixed in 1.02j When removing depot in setup phase, using remove counter button, depots do not go back to pool

R251 D20 Fixed in 1.02j Program is not allowing the Austrian Insurrection corps or Spanish guerillas to be loaned
Now allowing ALL units (Including sea) to be loaned!

R254 D32 Fixed in 1.02j program is allowing AI to stay in ports where they should NOT be allowed to!

R257 R10 Fixed in 1.02j game is allowing Turkey to bring back feudal units in the reinf phase

R258 R11 Fixed in 1.02j In PBEM games, the banners come up twice for a major power (once at the start of the reinforcement phase and another at the end). Meanwhile, the next major power in sequence never sees any banners.

R259 N7 Fixed in 1.02j order in which the program takes ship losses during PBEM games is incorrect (i.e. major is coming before minor) Order will be lt ships (minor then major) then hvy (minor then major). This could cause lt fleets from the MP to be taken before heavies of a minor. This could also solve problems with all text messages not making the transfer from player to player.


R260 ME Fixed in 1.02j Naval retreat not selecting eligible adjacent ports

R261 ME Fixed in 1.02j Some minor FS ports are being evacauted in error
Result of R254 fix

R262 N8 Fixed in 1.02j Unable to lift blockade and save fleets when city is captured
This fix is due to the fact that ALL ports should be scanned at the end of land / reinf and sea phases so a sea phase should never start with fleets trapped in a hostile port

R263 N12 Fixed in 1.02j Nelson is not being recognized in blockade lifting battles

R266 L37 Fixed in 1.02j Depots are being included in supply warning before ending land phase
Change message to warn that depot is out of the supply chain

R269 E10 Fixed in 1.02j "Three known bankruptcy bugs:
1. Program allows player to transfer a negative balance to controlled Free States
2. Program will not allow player to use available manpower to build militia.
3. Program will not allow player to make purchases for their controlled Free States." #3 could never be duplicated. This worked fine
R270 ME Fixed in 1.02j Need more descriptive message when in setup and factors are left to place!

R271 ME Fixed in 1.02j R214 has caused compatibility problem with games older than 1.02h

R272 ME Fixed in 1.02j Some ships that are off the map may be seen as in a port and are trying to be evacuated

R273 ME Fixed in 1.02j AI was being allowed to place forces in units that were not in the current scenario

R274 ME Fixed in 1.02j Battles after some larger battles were not showing units due to the fact that the battle page of units was still on page 2!

R275 ME Fixed in 1.02j Eliminated status text showing of diplomatic intent when trying alliances

[Dave_T]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

The 1.02j should be posted shortly but I wanted to post the release notes for 1.02j for you guys to review:

R260 ME Fixed in 1.02j Naval retreat not selecting eligible adjacent ports

Battle in the Channel, Fr defeats GB, GB retreats to Plymouth instead of London or Portsmouth.

Another teeny tiny bug I noticed, Russia DoWs Sweden, Swedish fleets blockade StP, Russian fleets StP sail straight through blockade.

[Marshall Ellis]

Dave_T:
 
If you have a game of them sailing through the blockade, I would love to see that!

[Dave_T]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

Dave_T:

If you have a game of them sailing through the blockade, I would love to see that!

Why, so you can see how poorly a design job you're doing?

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: Dave_T
Why, so you can see how poorly a design job you're doing?

So that if there is a bug, it can be fixed and I know you are well aware of the reason why.

That was a completely negative reply with no redeeming value whatsoever. If you look at an entire list of fixes and find one that didn't actually work, that's not at all unusual when it comes to programming complex applications. If it happened and you have a save, send it in. Otherwise, your bashing of Marshall is not appreciated and is also not acceptable. We're trying to improve the game, which is a goal I would think you'd share.

Regarding your complaint about not hearing back from us, as I posted earlier, I forwarded your e-mail requesting a refund to Dave, who as I understood it replied to you. If you did not receive that reply I will ask him to re-send it.

Regards,

- Erik

[Dave_T]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

ORIGINAL: Dave_T
Why, so you can see how poorly a design job you're doing?

So that if there is a bug, it can be fixed and I know you are well aware of the reason why.

That was a completely negative reply with no redeeming value whatsoever. If you look at an entire list of fixes and find one that didn't actually work, that's not at all unusual when it comes to programming complex applications. If it happened and you have a save, send it in. Otherwise, your bashing of Marshall is not appreciated and is also not acceptable. We're trying to improve the game, which is a goal I would think you'd share.

Regarding your complaint about not hearing back from us, as I posted earlier, I forwarded your e-mail requesting a refund to Dave, who as I understood it replied to you. If you did not receive that reply I will ask him to re-send it.

Regards,

- Erik

What is not appreciated is Matrix & Marshall lying to paying customers that a bug is fixed when it isn't and then asking the paying customer to do Matrix' & Marshalls work by reproducing the error.

"With no redeeming value whatsoever" completely sums up Matrix and EiANW. I emailed you 2 weeks ago with no reply, just a vague response on the forums that it's been passed on to "Dave" and that "Dave" has replied. Matrix would appera to be taking a leaf out of the Sweeney Todd book of customer service, fleece 'em & skin 'em.

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: Dave_T
What is not appreciated is Matrix & Marshall lying to paying customers that a bug is fixed when it isn't and then asking the paying customer to do Matrix' & Marshalls work by reproducing the error.

1.02j is a public beta. It was released to those customers who wanted to download and test it, in an effort to be more responsive. The last official update is 1.01. If you don't want to give feedback on 1.02j, you are under no obligation to download or test it. As with any beta, the list is what we believe we fixed, not what can be guaranteed. If you consider this to be lying, then you're using a different dictionary than the rest of us.

"With no redeeming value whatsoever" completely sums up Matrix and EiANW. I emailed you 2 weeks ago with no reply, just a vague response on the forums that it's been passed on to "Dave" and that "Dave" has replied. Matrix would appera to be taking a leaf out of the Sweeney Todd book of customer service, fleece 'em & skin 'em.

Apparently, what you're trying to tell me is that you did not receive Dave's reply.

Regards,

- Erik

[Dave_T]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins


The last official update is 1.01. If you don't want to give feedback on 1.02j, you are under no obligation to download or test it.

1.01 has the following bug which makes the product unusable for solo play: Austria surrenders to France for no apparent reason turn after turn.

1.00 has the following bug which makes the product unusable for solo play: when a major (eg France) enters territory (eg Egypt) of a minor it is supporting which has a seperate war with a major (eg Turkey) when the two majors are not at war and there is a corps of the attacking major within the minors province, then the corps of the controlling major cannot move within the minor territory as each adjacent area come up as "too complicated"

Both of these bugs make this product unsable for solo play in either of the offical releases by Matrix 4 months after release.

If Matrix are saying that it thinks the bug has been fixed when it hasn't then it's obvious Matrix has not even tested the product to see if the bug is fixed. Saying a bug has been fixed without knowing if it has is not telling the truth. If you can't guarantee a bug is fixed, then don't say it has.

[bresh]

Im guessing the list only includes fixes from 1.02h to j.
 
But alot of us didnt install 1.02h, so what fixes from g to j ?
 
Regards
Bresh

[Marshall Ellis]

Bresh:
 
I'm sorry. Here are some of the "H" fixes that did not make it into the "J" release notes. The "i" fixes should be included in the "J" fixes as "J" fixes. All should be noted as "J" fixes. Techincally I did not want "H" and "I" to be noted as releases. This will be reflected when "J" becomes a release in a version of release notes showing ALL 1.02 fixes.
 
R213 N18 Fixed in 1.02h  Not capturing lone transports when lifting a blockade with only transports!
     
R214 N19 Fixed in 1.02h  Program allowing interception from Plymouth into sea area 9
     Area DB design does not account for port position and which sea areas are available      to port only!

R215 N20 Fixed in 1.02h  Program not automatically moving fleets into port when port turns control over to      blockading nation
     
R216 L20 Fixed in 1.02h  Units allowed to move through insurrection corps
     
R218 L22 Fixed in 1.02h  Sea supply depots not allowed to be placed
     
R220 L24 Fixed in 1.02h  Sea area 18 not adjacent to La Rochelle
     Fixed for new games only!
 
R221 L25 Fixed in 1.02h  Port cities are allowed to be adjacent to ALL sea areas of the land area!
 
R223 L28 Fixed in 1.02h  Program is allowing Cossack units to be transported
     
R224 LC8-L19 Fixed in 1.02h  Program adding neutrals into battle
     Actually should have prevented movement of Prussia into the city since Holland      neutral is besiegng Mecklenberg. This has been changed going forward so that two      nuetral at war with the same minor are allowed in on a first come first serve basis      i.e. first nation to besiege has rights to the assault and the other hostile nation      must stay out of the city.
R225 LC9 Fixed in 1.02h  Unit retreating into wrong direction when only garrison in best available area.
  
R227 N21 Fixed in 1.02h  Fleets allowed to enter Palermo from sea area 730
 
R228 LC11 Fixed in 1.02h  Ottoman units not participating in battle
     
R230 LC13 Fixed in 1.02h  Trivial combats generating battle files!
     
R231 L36 Fixed in 1.02h  R224 fix is interfering with allowing leaders to move into a city with their units!
     
R232  Added in 1.02h  Need to move "Lend Unit" button to the reinforcemenrt phase
     
R233  Added in 1.02h  Need to remove the "Request Access" button and totally rely on granting access check boxes in dip screen.

[bresh]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

Bresh:

I'm sorry. Here are some of the "H" fixes that did not make it into the "J" release notes. The "i" fixes should be included in the "J" fixes as "J" fixes. All should be noted as "J" fixes. Techincally I did not want "H" and "I" to be noted as releases. This will be reflected when "J" becomes a release in a version of release notes showing ALL 1.02 fixes.

R213 N18 Fixed in 1.02h  Not capturing lone transports when lifting a blockade with only transports!
    
R214 N19 Fixed in 1.02h  Program allowing interception from Plymouth into sea area 9
    Area DB design does not account for port position and which sea areas are available      to port only!

R215 N20 Fixed in 1.02h  Program not automatically moving fleets into port when port turns control over to      blockading nation
    
R216 L20 Fixed in 1.02h  Units allowed to move through insurrection corps
    
R218 L22 Fixed in 1.02h  Sea supply depots not allowed to be placed
    
R220 L24 Fixed in 1.02h  Sea area 18 not adjacent to La Rochelle
    Fixed for new games only!

R221 L25 Fixed in 1.02h  Port cities are allowed to be adjacent to ALL sea areas of the land area!

R223 L28 Fixed in 1.02h  Program is allowing Cossack units to be transported
    
R224 LC8-L19 Fixed in 1.02h  Program adding neutrals into battle
    Actually should have prevented movement of Prussia into the city since Holland      neutral is besiegng Mecklenberg. This has been changed going forward so that two      nuetral at war with the same minor are allowed in on a first come first serve basis      i.e. first nation to besiege has rights to the assault and the other hostile nation      must stay out of the city.
R225 LC9 Fixed in 1.02h  Unit retreating into wrong direction when only garrison in best available area.
 
R227 N21 Fixed in 1.02h  Fleets allowed to enter Palermo from sea area 730

R228 LC11 Fixed in 1.02h  Ottoman units not participating in battle
    
R230 LC13 Fixed in 1.02h  Trivial combats generating battle files!
    
R231 L36 Fixed in 1.02h  R224 fix is interfering with allowing leaders to move into a city with their units!
    
R232  Added in 1.02h  Need to move "Lend Unit" button to the reinforcemenrt phase
    
R233  Added in 1.02h  Need to remove the "Request Access" button and totally rely on granting access check boxes in dip screen.

Im not sure i understand this right ?
Those listed here as 1.02h fixes are not in 1.02j ?

But R232 is implemented in 1.02j... ? "Didnt check the others yet"



Regards
Bresh

[ecn1]

Bresh,

Here are some of the "H" fixes that did not make it into the "J" release notes.

What Marshall said is that these fixes were not in the release nots, NOT that they were not fixed....

[bresh]

ORIGINAL: ecn1

Bresh,

Here are some of the "H" fixes that did not make it into the "J" release notes.

What Marshall said is that these fixes were not in the release nots, NOT that they were not fixed....

oops
Guess i missed "notes"

Regards
Bresh

[maxstrike]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

ORIGINAL: Dave_T
Why, so you can see how poorly a design job you're doing?

So that if there is a bug, it can be fixed and I know you are well aware of the reason why.

That was a completely negative reply with no redeeming value whatsoever. If you look at an entire list of fixes and find one that didn't actually work, that's not at all unusual when it comes to programming complex applications. If it happened and you have a save, send it in. Otherwise, your bashing of Marshall is not appreciated and is also not acceptable. We're trying to improve the game, which is a goal I would think you'd share.

Regarding your complaint about not hearing back from us, as I posted earlier, I forwarded your e-mail requesting a refund to Dave, who as I understood it replied to you. If you did not receive that reply I will ask him to re-send it.

Regards,

- Erik

Dave_T,

Sorry to quote so much ... However, in the past I have been critical of Matrix Games' developers (in particular the video resolution issue with Hornet Leader), but I am a professional programmer (20+ years experience) and I know what I'm talking about when it comes to software. Matrix Games' developers frequently release poor quality software, but they also seem to follow up with patches until the game is playable. However, while this seems like an unfair practice of using the buyers as beta testers there is a reason this happens in the software industry as a whole. If you are cynical you could believe that financial motives force early releases and sometimes this is true, but in my experience in small teams it has more to do with getting overwhelmed with the project. As the code base increases (most of these games are actually very complex to code, compared to a standard implementation of a MFC windows application), developers have a more difficult time focusing on what needs to be fixed/polished. A kind of fatigue sets in as you work with the same code day after day. Eventually after months of this its easy for a developer to lose focus on whats important to fix. While casual beta testers help, without a formal testing group of full-time testers it is hard to get a perspective on the state of your code base. It is also important to remember that a developer and the testers usually repeat the same things over and over again, so it is common that most combinations of actions are not tested. Therefore the developer fixed to game to work for the way the testers play. Without a large team of fulltime testers, very few variations of gameplay/keystrokes/mouse movements/options/etc... are actually tested. It isn't until the game gets released that many events and combinations, which were not used extensively in testing, are actually exercised.

While it might seem unfair to pay $60 for a game that isn't perfect, the reality is that your $60 + everyone else's $60 isn't going to get a multi-million dollar development budget for wargames. And finally until you actually develop and sell a successful strategy game, I think you should trust me that Matrix Games and its associates are not intentionally pulling a "Derek Smart" on the gaming public. I have lurked and read 1000's of their posts over the years, and I think they are good people, who love games, but are limited by the economic realities of niche games. But roughly since the release of Uncommon Valor, most of the games produced by Matrix Games are very ambitious and complicated endeavors. I'm not convinced a group backed by EA's resources could produce a perfect EiA or WiTP without significant patches.


Sorry for the rant,
Daniel

[Jimmer]

Can we get a matrix of the patches? If you did it in a spreadsheet, have two pages. The first would be the actual matrix, with patch levels (1.02a, j, etc.) in the columns, and fix numbers in the rows. JUST the designation, not the explanation. Then, on the second page, include the detailed description of each bug number.
 
I've tried to craft one out of the various threads with data in them, but the data are all written by humans, and thus have format inconsistencies that make this difficult to finish.
 
NOTE: If you have this data, but not in a spreadsheet type format, I would be happy to make it for you. The only thing that's critical is to have the data be in something close to a consistent format. It doesn't matter WHAT format, just that it's consistent. Email me with the details, including any NDA you might need signed.

[jnier]

ORIGINAL: Dave_T

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

ORIGINAL: Dave_T
Why, so you can see how poorly a design job you're doing?

So that if there is a bug, it can be fixed and I know you are well aware of the reason why.

That was a completely negative reply with no redeeming value whatsoever. If you look at an entire list of fixes and find one that didn't actually work, that's not at all unusual when it comes to programming complex applications. If it happened and you have a save, send it in. Otherwise, your bashing of Marshall is not appreciated and is also not acceptable. We're trying to improve the game, which is a goal I would think you'd share.

Regarding your complaint about not hearing back from us, as I posted earlier, I forwarded your e-mail requesting a refund to Dave, who as I understood it replied to you. If you did not receive that reply I will ask him to re-send it.

Regards,

- Erik

What is not appreciated is Matrix & Marshall lying to paying customers that a bug is fixed when it isn't and then asking the paying customer to do Matrix' & Marshalls work by reproducing the error.

"With no redeeming value whatsoever" completely sums up Matrix and EiANW. I emailed you 2 weeks ago with no reply, just a vague response on the forums that it's been passed on to "Dave" and that "Dave" has replied. Matrix would appera to be taking a leaf out of the Sweeney Todd book of customer service, fleece 'em & skin 'em.

In the name of all that is holy, please ban this dillweed!

[Marshall Ellis]

Jimmer:
 
I have this in a spreadsheet form. Posting it doesn't work real well. Would you like a copy?
I'll make release notes version in spreadsheet form going forward if enough folks want that?
 
 

[Jimmer]

Sure. You have my email address from the forum, I presume?
 

[JanSorensen]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

Jimmer:

I have this in a spreadsheet form. Posting it doesn't work real well. Would you like a copy?
I'll make release notes version in spreadsheet form going forward if enough folks want that?

Just zip it and post it as an attachment.

[joviel]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

Dave_T:

If you have a game of them sailing through the blockade, I would love to see that!



Why, so you can see how poorly a design job you're doing?

OK, I bashed the game a few weeks back. I'm disappointed in the game too but ad hominem attacks like this are not just unhelpful, they are rude and actually counterproductive. If anything makes Marshall throw up his hands and give up on this project it will be garbage like this.

Marshall, do you have a work address I can mail something to? I have a little artifact from the early Napoleonic era I'd like to pass your way. We need to keep your spirits up - I would have run off to live in a beach shack without electricity a long time ago.