When?

[WIF_Killzone]

I must admit that many of the recent posts on the subject left me dry, I think I would rather read enthusiatic posts, anyway here is my 2 cents. (BTW, really enjoyed your post Mark.Patrick, back to lurking, patiently)

In this age of fast food and "I want it now so I'l buy it now and pay for it later", it is somewhat refreshing to have to wait for something that is so eagerly anticipated--it hurts so good, ha.

Seriously, I am quite tired of the "does not work as advertised" in almost everything (and especially technology based goods) that we pay our good money for. I for one will not bitch until I buy it and play it, then if the quality is poor stand back, I may go postal.

I must admit that from these forums I have a new appreciation of the time and effort to create a quality game of this scope, especially the AI. Moreover, I now feel informed on how the AI will be coded (and I agree with the approach), I am wondering however if it will live up to our lofty expectations. I suspect the time will come in the not to distant future, when development starts on the AI and/or when play testing commences that quite a number of design issues that were not thought of will come to light with the I (intelligence) of the AI.

We as forum members may or may not hear about these "intelligence issues" however I am sure informed decisions will certaintly nevertheless be made by the inside team, to either continue to develop (impacting the release date) or to roll it out with a less than perfect AI. I should note that I (and I hope you) are not naive enough to believe the AI will be perfect, it is simply not possible, and certainly not without additional work being made "over time" that builds upon a solid AI design.

I wonder what my opinion will be at that time if I was pervue to play testing results that show a good but not pefect or bulletproof AI. Would I say stay with it, or release it now and incorporate additional feedback from the public in later release(s). I think I would say the latter for a number of reasons I will not go into now.

Anyway, continue to give it your best Steve (and other contributers). I feel lucky to be able to read anything on the subject in these forums, more-more-more please. I also seem to have lofty expectations as a result of what I have seen to date, so good work in my opnion.

[marcbarker]

ORIGINAL: mark.patrick

Owned the old Avalon Hill "Rise and Decline of the Third Reich" board game title, eons ago. What a tedious pain-in-the-butt to play...and was absolutely facinated by it anyway, like no other game before or since. I spent hours over that board. I actually mastered the rule set and played the entire campaign, solitaire, at least a dozen times. The Axis took Gibralter once, Suez on another occasion and defeated the USSR on yet another. Played to essentially a draw a few times also. It made me fully appreciate just how close the world came to the abyss, had Herr Hitler not been such a total dumb*** as a military strategist. Of course, there was Fat Man and Little Boy, so who really knows? Still, big fun, if you're one of those weirdos that's likes this sort of thing. And boy do we, huh? Never found a human opponent who could even begin to comprehend the rules, let alone play against me. One guy tried, but never got past the "befuddled" stage. I've been looking for something like it on the computer, ever since. Well, this is certainly it, on steroids, so please don't give up. There are probably many more out there just like me, merely watching...and waiting. [;)]

Ok, back to lurking...

I have played this game as well numerous times. I still have the computer version and still works on vista. I have the basic and advanced board game. My wife looks at me when I set the boards up and she says WTF? Is it like checkers? I say "yeah King Me"

I used to pla this play by mail...yes by snail mail...and boy talking about a long turn gone wrong.....but i do enjoy these games.....I just can't wait for this game.....
Marc

[Joseignacio]

ORIGINAL: flipperwasirish

ORIGINAL: Skanvak

Does your undocumented support to a decision that is not yours help sooth anyone? No.

I was not trying to sooth anyone.

My opinion:

1) People will not be happy until the product is released (but be careful what you wish for).

2) We as potential customers CANNOT effect a change to the completion date (no matter how much some think we can) nor should we.

3) Anyone who complains about the time this is taking should look to Avalon Hills attempt at making computer Third Reich.

3RPC took about five years to complete (with a larger staff), customers complained about the time it took, and it was pushed out the door BEFORE it should have been (IMO as a beta-tester on the project) for a number of reasons. The result was a poor product that couldn't even strickly follow simpler rules than MWIF will have to deal with.

I do not blindly support all the choices that have been made in this project, but I support the concept of trying to get it as right as possible before publication.

4) I don't believe anybody has been misinformed about dates. They are estimates and sometimes they slip. Better to slip than release a poor product. See #3 if you disagree here.

5) If you don't like to see estimates or follow the progress of the project then avoid this forum. I am sure that once MWIF is for sale it will appear on the main page where everbody that visits Matrix will see it. Estimates are not a problem.

Final: I believe we all want a fine product. Good software takes time, rush it and you will not be happy.

Excellent post!!!!!

[Ohio Jones]

1. I am surely disappointed that MWIF hasn't been released before this, just as is everyone on this forum, no doubt. I'd wager there are also a great many people who may not even realize this project exists, but who have long wished for a great WWII strategy game to play on the computer.

2. As frustrated as we are, it's likely nobody is as frustrated as Steve must be. He obviously takes pride in doing good work, and it must be galling to the project manager in him to have had so many key dates and projections slip. That said, they are projections, and as such are subject to the many vagaries of program development. A developer and a publisher with less commitment to quality than to filling a slot in their release schedule to satisfy their marketing department would have made different decisions and pushed out a product long since. And it would suck. I for one am glad that Steve and Matrix are taking a different approach, and are releasing this when it's ready, and not before. The good folks at Pixar, who have risen to the top of the film industry in terms of putting out quality movies that receive great critical and public acclaim, do so because they are not slaves to their release schedule, but rather focus on the quality of their product (most notably story) in an age when many production companies will settle for "good enough" in order to have something in the hopper to release. Pixar - and its audience - are rewarded for their patience. I believe we will be as well. My only hope is that, when the product is finally released, Steve is able (after a no doubt much-needed break from it) to enjoy playing the game with a feeling of pride and accomplishment.

3. This game is being developed on the assumption that its market includes not only people who haven't played WiF before (in any incarnation), but also people who may never have played a strategic wargame. As a result, there is a lot of parallel development required - outside the game engine itself - in order to provide guidance through the experience for new players. That suggests that Matrix sees a market for this product outside the (sadly aging) diehard grognads. It also suggests that those who - like me - were never bright (or obsessed) rnogh to memorize the whole game will still be able to play and enjoy this version. That strikes me as a good thing.

4. That said, the overwhelming bulk of ingenuity and work effort to date has been devoted to completely re-engineering the logic of CWIF into a modular system of decision points - something that may in fact be harder than simply creating a program from scratch. This is extremely critical from a programming perspective, not only because it significantly improves the efficiency of operation of the program (resulting in faster turns), but more importantly because it is critical to preparing the game for PBEM, Netplay and especially a functioning AIO. There is work still to be done, to be sure, but that work would not have been possible without the strong programming foundation Steve has built. Sadly, we users wil never see that code directly to appreciate the work Steve put in, but I believe we will see the benefits of it when we have a smoothly functioning version of an incredibly sophisticated and complex game on our desktops and laptops.

And for that, as disappointed and frustrated as I am, I am fully prepared to wait.

[CrusssDaddy]

I had a very nice exchange of emails with Harry Rowland - it was my first chance to get in touch with him directly, and I was not disappointed with his politeness and candor.

In any case, my view that 2010 is a critical year for MWiF is shared by others, and I think frustration with Matrix extends much deeper than simply anxious fans. Nothing in Steve's year-end update suggests a game this year, but I am confident that we shall see progress of a sort nonetheless. After seven years, something's better than nothing...

[WIF_Killzone]

Very well put.

ORIGINAL: Ohio Jones

1. I am surely disappointed that MWIF hasn't been released before this, just as is everyone on this forum, no doubt. I'd wager there are also a great many people who may not even realize this project exists, but who have long wished for a great WWII strategy game to play on the computer.

2. As frustrated as we are, it's likely nobody is as frustrated as Steve must be. He obviously takes pride in doing good work, and it must be galling to the project manager in him to have had so many key dates and projections slip. That said, they are projections, and as such are subject to the many vagaries of program development. A developer and a publisher with less commitment to quality than to filling a slot in their release schedule to satisfy their marketing department would have made different decisions and pushed out a product long since. And it would suck. I for one am glad that Steve and Matrix are taking a different approach, and are releasing this when it's ready, and not before. The good folks at Pixar, who have risen to the top of the film industry in terms of putting out quality movies that receive great critical and public acclaim, do so because they are not slaves to their release schedule, but rather focus on the quality of their product (most notably story) in an age when many production companies will settle for "good enough" in order to have something in the hopper to release. Pixar - and its audience - are rewarded for their patience. I believe we will be as well. My only hope is that, when the product is finally released, Steve is able (after a no doubt much-needed break from it) to enjoy playing the game with a feeling of pride and accomplishment.

3. This game is being developed on the assumption that its market includes not only people who haven't played WiF before (in any incarnation), but also people who may never have played a strategic wargame. As a result, there is a lot of parallel development required - outside the game engine itself - in order to provide guidance through the experience for new players. That suggests that Matrix sees a market for this product outside the (sadly aging) diehard grognads. It also suggests that those who - like me - were never bright (or obsessed) rnogh to memorize the whole game will still be able to play and enjoy this version. That strikes me as a good thing.

4. That said, the overwhelming bulk of ingenuity and work effort to date has been devoted to completely re-engineering the logic of CWIF into a modular system of decision points - something that may in fact be harder than simply creating a program from scratch. This is extremely critical from a programming perspective, not only because it significantly improves the efficiency of operation of the program (resulting in faster turns), but more importantly because it is critical to preparing the game for PBEM, Netplay and especially a functioning AIO. There is work still to be done, to be sure, but that work would not have been possible without the strong programming foundation Steve has built. Sadly, we users wil never see that code directly to appreciate the work Steve put in, but I believe we will see the benefits of it when we have a smoothly functioning version of an incredibly sophisticated and complex game on our desktops and laptops.

And for that, as disappointed and frustrated as I am, I am fully prepared to wait.

[bo]

ORIGINAL: CrusssDaddy

I had a very nice exchange of emails with Harry Rowland - it was my first chance to get in touch with him directly, and I was not disappointed with his politeness and candor.

In any case, my view that 2010 is a critical year for MWiF is shared by others, and I think frustration with Matrix extends much deeper than simply anxious fans. Nothing in Steve's year-end update suggests a game this year, but I am confident that we shall see progress of a sort nonetheless. After seven years, something's better than nothing...

I dont know what pill your wife put in your coffee this morning Chris but could she send me one I could sure use it[:D]

Bo

[HansHafen]

ORIGINAL: CrusssDaddy

I had a very nice exchange of emails with Harry Rowland - it was my first chance to get in touch with him directly, and I was not disappointed with his politeness and candor.

In any case, my view that 2010 is a critical year for MWiF is shared by others, and I think frustration with Matrix extends much deeper than simply anxious fans. Nothing in Steve's year-end update suggests a game this year, but I am confident that we shall see progress of a sort nonetheless. After seven years, something's better than nothing...

Well, don't be coy, kiss and tell. Or don't even bring it up. Matter of fact, just cut and paste.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: CrusssDaddy

I had a very nice exchange of emails with Harry Rowland - it was my first chance to get in touch with him directly, and I was not disappointed with his politeness and candor.

In any case, my view that 2010 is a critical year for MWiF is shared by others, and I think frustration with Matrix extends much deeper than simply anxious fans. Nothing in Steve's year-end update suggests a game this year, but I am confident that we shall see progress of a sort nonetheless. After seven years, something's better than nothing...

Warspite1

CrusssDaddy, is your post intended to be written as a "I know something you don`t know" type tease?

Do you care to elaborate on any of that? What do you mean 2010 is a critical year? Why are you now "confident we shall see progress of a sort"? What does that mean? - no one was expecting no progress this year. What did Mr Rowland say?

[macgregor]

Some times the best we can do is wait and prepare.

[bo]

ORIGINAL: macgregor

Some times the best we can do is wait and prepare.

Good lord even Mac is taking Crusssdaddy's calming pill PLEASE send me one now
Crusssdaddy I need it to calm me down too.[&o]

Bo

[Jeff Gilbert]

Back after a year + absense from seeing how things are going.
Great to see progress has continued to move forward.
I think I'll spned the next few hours reading up on MWiF ...
[:)]

[macgregor]

ORIGINAL: bo
Good lord even Mac is taking Crusssdaddy's calming pill PLEASE send me one now
Crusssdaddy I need it to calm me down too.[&o]

Bo

I wonder if I used a big enough picture?

I had my say. The AI, the PBEM, and a whole lot of unit detail I can't imagine(I hope it includes photos/plate drawings) are taking a front-seat to netplay. No amount of protest will affect that. Steve is aware of our concerns however.

Steve has really done a lot to accommodate decision-making. I think the final product will move surprisingly fast -much faster than the boardgame. He has enlisted help too. With every man working hard and making progress ...one of these estimates will eventually hit the mark.

[bo]

ORIGINAL: macgregor

ORIGINAL: bo
Good lord even Mac is taking Crusssdaddy's calming pill PLEASE send me one now
Crusssdaddy I need it to calm me down too.[&o]

Bo

I wonder if I used a big enough picture?

I had my say. The AI, the PBEM, and a whole lot of unit detail I can't imagine(I hope it includes photos/plate drawings) are taking a front-seat to netplay. No amount of protest will affect that. Steve is aware of our concerns however.

Steve has really done a lot to accommodate decision-making. I think the final product will move surprisingly fast -much faster than the boardgame. He has enlisted help too. With every man working hard and making progress ...one of these estimates will eventually hit the mark.

Right on Mac, I had posted before I just started playing pbem three weeks ago and I am enjoying it even though I would rather play the AI because I am getting torn to shreds by a nasty human. Maybe you would be so kind as to play me by pbem when the game comes to fruitation and help me learn to set up games such as PBEM and net play.

Bo

[michaelbaldur]

ORIGINAL: macgregor
I think the final product will move surprisingly fast -much faster than the boardgame.

the game moves fast. more or less as fast as you can play it. and when you remove rule discussions and odds calculation. it is much faster ....


it is worth waiting fore ....

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: michaelbaldur

ORIGINAL: macgregor
I think the final product will move surprisingly fast -much faster than the boardgame.

the game moves fast. more or less as fast as you can play it. and when you remove rule discussions and odds calculation. it is much faster ....


it is worth waiting fore ....

Yes.

I believe the only slow places are going to be figuring out what land and naval moves you want to make.

The air missions are much simpler than when playing over-the-board because the computer identifies all the bombers and fighters that can fly at each point in the sequence of play. There is no need to check all the different stacks on the map - looking for air units that can still move.

[wif_o_matic]

Hello Steve,

My first post in the forum. I've been reading it for a long time. It looks like you can see the light at the end of the tunnel. Keep up the good work. I'd say I'm rooting for you, but in Australia that phrase has connotations you'd rather not think about.

Happy bug hunting

Ben

[Hoetzendorf]

I´ve also been following the developement for some time now (a few years) and just wanted to say keep up the good work, Steve + volunteers.

[Anendrue]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: michaelbaldur

ORIGINAL: macgregor
I think the final product will move surprisingly fast -much faster than the boardgame.

the game moves fast. more or less as fast as you can play it. and when you remove rule discussions and odds calculation. it is much faster ....


it is worth waiting fore ....

Yes.

I believe the only slow places are going to be figuring out what land and naval moves you want to make.

The air missions are much simpler than when playing over-the-board because the computer identifies all the bombers and fighters that can fly at each point in the sequence of play. There is no need to check all the different stacks on the map - looking for air units that can still move.

Wow sounds great.

Obviously the speed will slow by some amount when the AI is coded in. However what type of delay can we expect short, moderate, lengthy?

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: abj9562

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: michaelbaldur



the game moves fast. more or less as fast as you can play it. and when you remove rule discussions and odds calculation. it is much faster ....


it is worth waiting fore ....

Yes.

I believe the only slow places are going to be figuring out what land and naval moves you want to make.

The air missions are much simpler than when playing over-the-board because the computer identifies all the bombers and fighters that can fly at each point in the sequence of play. There is no need to check all the different stacks on the map - looking for air units that can still move.

Wow sounds great.

Obviously the speed will slow by some amount when the AI is coded in. However what type of delay can we expect short, moderate, lengthy?

I do not expect much delay with the AI, especailly if you are running on a dual or quad processor. Most of the AIO decision making will be done concurrently with the human player making his decisions. The coding mechanism is to use a separate thread for the AIO processing. When you get right down to it, WIF is a long series of decisions with the deciding side changing frequently. So, most of the time the AIO needs only to make a only a single decision (e.g., whether to fly ground strikes and if so by which units where). While the defender/human is deciding about interceptors, the AIO is deciding about intercepting the interceptors. The results of the ground strike will take some time for the human to view and absorb. And the AIO will be figuring out what to do next while the human exults or groans about the ground strikes.

The AIO will make a global assessment at the start of each impulse and turn but even that will exploit previous analyses from the impulse/turn before - that is, it won't be "from scratch".

We'll see how it goes in practice, but I already know how enormous the amount of processing is just to display all the units on the map and to calculate all the possible moves for a group of naval units when they are picked up (typically a group of naval units can move to almost 100 locations). Those calculations happen in an eye blink. The AIO calcualtions shouldn't be much greater since there is no need to draw anything on the map - except the final moves of the units.