When?

[bo]

ORIGINAL: macgregor

Red Prince: This is a fairly uneducated opinion, but I don't know if it's possible to give a definitive estimate of release. If you look at the reports, Steve has yet to crack 70 bugs. Yet he fixes 100+ each month. There are only a few left which are not relatively new reports. This is because every time a major group of bugs is resolved we can move into an area of the game previously unavailable. That means fresh material to create bugs we haven't seen before.

This is an interesting point. I'm curious how far the playtesters have been able to get in a game. That would give us some idea of the progress vs. work left.

If these play testers are able to put in 7-9 hours most days, I've got to believe this is a lot of fun and that they're through a lot of the game.

What I know about Steve is that he's incredibly focused, and he's very successful. The game will come -though I'm with the pre-AI release crowd, I want it yesterday. Steve incorporated the AI from the ground floor and has attacked it with equal vigor. He possesses the kind of teachable, document-able approach to game strategy that is as scientific as I've ever seen, and perhaps thus conducive for developing an AI . I remember a long time ago when computer wif first showed up on ADG, him telling me how long it would take for an AI, and his estimate from that time has so far proved fairly accurate.

Hi Mac how are you have not been here much because I get in trouble being an impatient person and such, good idea about progress, but in laymans language at least for me anyway, I finally have to agree with you about the AI, do it after the game comes out, I was always for an AI because I never have played by PBEM before this year, now I understand it better I believe it is much better to play a human unless your playing against Big blue and then we know what that outcome will be. Besides I never saw an AI that can come near a humans ability to attack or defend. Take care.

Bo

[Red Prince]

ORIGINAL: bo

ORIGINAL: macgregor

Red Prince: This is a fairly uneducated opinion, but I don't know if it's possible to give a definitive estimate of release. If you look at the reports, Steve has yet to crack 70 bugs. Yet he fixes 100+ each month. There are only a few left which are not relatively new reports. This is because every time a major group of bugs is resolved we can move into an area of the game previously unavailable. That means fresh material to create bugs we haven't seen before.

This is an interesting point. I'm curious how far the playtesters have been able to get in a game. That would give us some idea of the progress vs. work left.

If these play testers are able to put in 7-9 hours most days, I've got to believe this is a lot of fun and that they're through a lot of the game.

What I know about Steve is that he's incredibly focused, and he's very successful. The game will come -though I'm with the pre-AI release crowd, I want it yesterday. Steve incorporated the AI from the ground floor and has attacked it with equal vigor. He possesses the kind of teachable, document-able approach to game strategy that is as scientific as I've ever seen, and perhaps thus conducive for developing an AI . I remember a long time ago when computer wif first showed up on ADG, him telling me how long it would take for an AI, and his estimate from that time has so far proved fairly accurate.

Hi Mac how are you have not been here much because I get in trouble being an impatient person and such, good idea about progress, but in laymans language at least for me anyway, I finally have to agree with you about the AI, do it after the game comes out, I was always for an AI because I never have played by PBEM before this year, now I understand it better I believe it is much better to play a human unless your playing against Big blue and then we know what that outcome will be. Besides I never saw an AI that can come near a humans ability to attack or defend. Take care.

Bo

This is true, but if I weren't involved in the process, I probably wouldn't buy it without an AI option. PBEM requires other people to play, and not everybody has the same schedule or time available to commit to playing a full game together. If I can't play a game by myself, even against an AI, I don't buy.

That said, the Solitaire option does let you play even without other people. However, you can't easily "trick" yourself into an early DOW, can you? Or bluff, either. You're the grand strategist for all the world. You decide who lives and who dies on all fronts. (Kinda gives a person a God complex, really)

[paulderynck]

The plan for PBEM includes Standing Orders which should allow more of a turn to be completed without real time involvement with your opponent. It was also planned that you will be able to switch from NetPlay to PBEM and back again (similar to Vassal). IMO that is a superb way of doing it. If you've got a lot of moves to do, you do them offline and then meet online in NetPlay for the interaction.

My personal opinion is that this state of MWiF is far more attainable in the near future* - then a workable AI; and once it is available, the game should be released.

* = that's as close an estimate of "when" by a playtester as I'm willing to provide

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: bo

Red Prince [Aaron] What do you test as a playtester? Do you move a unit to different locations and see if any errors or bugs crop up? Do you check all the rules when you make that move such as is the unit in supply etc. I am not asking this in any negative way just curious as to what you face as a playtester, from what I understand there is no fog of war in the game which could be a headache in some games, is it all the rules that seem to complicate the completion of this game.

Bo

Fairly often the beta testers work on areas of the game that I am working on. For instance, early on I focused on air missions. There are 8 of those, plus the air rebase and naval air phases. So the beta testers would find bugs and I would fix them - repeat that hundreds of times over the course of 6 months and the bugs in the air missions were reduced to just a few.

Once I had turned my attention to other things, new bugs in air missions turned up from time to time. But once I have reduced a 'phase' of the game to zero bugs remaining, I am pretty diligent in fixing any new bugs reported. Because we keep bringing in new beta testers, and the fact that the rules are so complex, I see a signiifcant number of reported bugs that aren't bugs - just misunderstandings. Sometimes I work on the player interface/feedback to prevent new players from thinking the program is misbehaving. Although those aren't bugs per se, I believe strongly that improving the player's understanding of what is going on is crucial for a successful product.

One of the most complex parts of the game is the setup phase at the beginning. The 11 scenarios, 250+ countries, 70 unit types, and 80 optional rules mean that the preparatory work for simply getting to the point of starting the first turn is enormous. People who have played the game over the board are quite familiar with this fact. MWIF makes that work go away for the players - but only because the programmer has spent months, perhaps a year, writing and debugging code to accomplish the myriad of tasks associated with setup. I have been happy with the Setup code for a couple of years now, although a few new bugs get reported from time to time. These days they do not concern the Setup phase, but rather the Reinforcement phase, which uses a lot fo the same code.

I have had land movment bugs down to 4 for most of this year. What remains to be done there is to add code so players can not 'cheat'. For testing purposes, these bugs don't interfere with playing through impulses and turns. I have had land combat bugs at zero for most of this year too. That is another area where I fix any bugs as soon as they are reported.

I also fix any 'bugs' related to text immediately (e.g., spelling, incorrect prompts, etc.).

In essence, I try to fix newly reported bugs immediately if they concern any area of the game that I consider 'done'. Of the 152 phases/subphases/sub-subphases/digressions in the sequence of play, 120+ are bug free.

This approach means that areas I haven't "cleaned up" tend to accumulate more bugs. Periodically I go through all the bug reports in a section looking for duplicates, and I almost always find some.

There is another group of bug reports that are not necesarily bugs. I find that some things work as designed/intended and the beta tester was incorrect in reporting it as a bug. When I am lucky, other beta testers figure that out first, so I don't even have to investigate.

The most annoying bugs for me are those that mess up internal variables without any obvious effect at the time they occur. It is only later in the turn that the player sees a manifestation of the problem. The result is that I get a lot of bug reports concerning phase X, when all the code in phase X is perfect. The problem occurred back in phase Q, and I have a devil of a time figuring that out. Meanwhile I have all these inexplicable bug reports associated with phase X sitting on my task list.

When I clear my task list of "new bugs in done phases", I tackle one the phases that have numerous bugs. By focusing on a single phase of the game it is easier for me to set up test cases (usually provided by the beta testers) and run through the program multiple times while tracking what the program is doing internally. Typically I execute the program 50+ times when working on a 'new' problem area. Eventually I get "drained of functioning brain cells" and take a break from the phase of the game that is my current focus. Then I go back to reading new bug reports and bringing my task list up-to-date with fresh input from the beta testers.

I only have 2 phases remaining with 10 or more bugs: naval combat (12) and production planning (24). At one time I had naval combat down to 6 reported bugs. Of the 12 currently sitting in my task list for naval combat, 9 are about problems with units aborting from naval combat.

I could write a lot more here, but I think this is enough to give you the flavor of how debugging goes from my point of view.

[Red Prince]

ORIGINAL: macgregor

Am I to assume that the hundred-so pages of rules have been coded into game and that it's now a question of getting them to cooperate with each other? That would be something. Though I realize this can be difficult.

For the large part, yes. Or, at least, that is accurate enough. There are a very few phases/sub-phases that have not yet been coded by Steve. Search and Seizure, for example, is at the point where the game recognizes that it is possible, but there is no code yet to actually do it. All major aspects have been done, as far as I know.

Additionally, Steve's Player's Manual is 399 pages long. It's set up so that everything you want to know is easy to access. It gets edited and kept up to date as things get changed. There are very few missing passages, which means almost everything is at the point where it can be described in significant detail in English. From what I understand, that means it all has a solid code backing, since mathemaics rarely translates well into spoken language.

ORIGINAL: bo

Red Prince [Aaron] What do you test as a playtester? Do you move a unit to different locations and see if any errors or bugs crop up? Do you check all the rules when you make that move such as is the unit in supply etc. I am not asking this in any negative way just curious as to what you face as a playtester, from what I understand there is no fog of war in the game which could be a headache in some games, is it all the rules that seem to complicate the completion of this game.

and

ORIGINAL: Steve

I could write a lot more here, but I think this is enough to give you the flavor of how debugging goes from my point of view.

From my point of view (again, I only speak for myself), I keep an eye out for rules infractions, but my main focus right now is trying to recreate bugs listed on Steve's Master Task List. When/if I succeed, I report the results and provide saved games and instructions on how to recreate the bug. If I try several times and can't recreate the bug, I report that, too, and this might mean that it gets removed from the list. The one's I'm testing are generally a year or two old. Some of these have been corrected along with another fix some time ago. If that is the case, it's something Steve needs to know.

While I'm working on creating the conditions I need . . . say, Morocco conquered by Italy, with the USA in position to liberate it . . . there are four kinds of bugs that can come up:

1. Previously reported bugs
These can be found on the Master Task List, and the first thing I do whenever a bug turns up is to check the MTL. If I think there is something I can add to the current listing, I'll investigate, but usually these can just be ignored for the moment.

2. New bugs
Or something that might be a bug, anyway. If it isn't on the MTL, I investigate. I try to isolate what actions I take will cause it. I'm not always successful, and sometimes I'm just plain wrong. I then post it for Steve and the other beta-testers to review. This sometimes leads to rules discussions, investigations by other testers, or requests for more information from Steve. Sometimes it just gets put on the MTL without any discussion.

3. MadExcept Errors
Don't ask me to explain these. My understanding is minimal. It's a program that generates reports that help Steve locate where bugs exist in the code. When these happen, I send the report in and post it in the forum.

4. Rules Violations
This is one of the things you asked about. If the violation is blatant, I'll dig deeper into the problem. If it's minor, or a known quantity (it's on the MTL), I usually skip over it in order to continue working on the task that's been "assigned" to me. These are often rules misunderstandings of my own, which several of the other beta-testers will correct (thankfully!).

When I talk about investigating, that means trying to duplicate the bug as it happened, then trying several similar things to see if the bug happens there, too. Moving a naval unit from port to a sea area, for example, might show a bug in one situation (interceptions involving subs, maybe), but not in a similar situation (interceptions with no subs). That is useful information, I think.

When I'm close to completing a test, I will often "ignore" bugs. Instead of looking into it, I make a note of the situation and the bug to try it later. This keeps me somewhat on task.

To answer your specific question, bo, it's not often that just moving a unit will be the cause of a bug. It might interact with something or be part of a bug, but I don't test just movement in most cases. One of the liberation bugs I'm checking is to see what happens when a Major liberates a Minor formerly aligned to a different Major in '39. Another similar one is to see which Majors can actually liberate France by controlling Paris. Both of these involve movement rules, but are not tests of movement, per se.

If there's anything else you are interested in, I'll try to respond as accurately as I can.

-Aaron

[bo]

Thank you Aaron and Steve appreciate your reply, Steve why cant you write a program without bugs so these guys can get some sleep, guess not huh! Just kidding Steve I am in awe of your ability and my lips are sealed forever. [errrr maybe] Thanks again.

Bo

[macgregor]

I believe Steve will make a pretty good AI -better than most games and certainly anything this size(that's a joke. Nothing is this size). The problem is for me, that a good AI will be no better than a weak AI, because I don't want to spend 6 months or more of my life playing against an AI. Triumph over what? A machine? Where's the glory in that? I guess I'm a 'team sport' kinda guy. Playing against an AI, to compare to someone else's result? Like a beauty contest? I don't watch qualifying runs, I watch the race(I mean ...if I was into racing).

[macgregor]

ORIGINAL: bo
Hi Mac how are you have not been here much because I get in trouble being an impatient person and such, good idea about progress, but in laymans language at least for me anyway, I finally have to agree with you about the AI, do it after the game comes out, I was always for an AI because I never have played by PBEM before this year, now I understand it better I believe it is much better to play a human unless your playing against Big blue and then we know what that outcome will be. Besides I never saw an AI that can come near a humans ability to attack or defend. Take care.

Bo

Hi Bo. I don't visit so often anymore. The only thing that seems to help my anxiety over the release is to decrease my emotional investment. Otherwise I'm just being an agitator.

The game is apparently 'close'.

[CrusssDaddy]

Big bullet dodged - the Rapture is a fraud, so Delaytrix has a little more time to get WiF out. But I'm not liking the chances of anyone seeing this game. 2012 is right around the corner and those Mayans seem pretty adamant that 'That's all, folks!'... gonna be tough for the old farts here just to make it that long.

michaelbaldur: The fact that you're crowing about being a driving force among the playtest crew is damning commentary. You have stuck your foot in your mouth on this forum so many times your gums have athlete's foot. Plus you are a Peyton Manning fan... 'nuf said.

MWiF is amateur hour from top to bottom, and all the good intentions in the world aren't going to deliver a finished product. If you don't have it already, go get the ADG version - that's the only one forthcoming, and at least the money ends up in deserving pockets.

[Red Prince]

ORIGINAL: CrusssDaddy
2012 is right around the corner . . .

Six months is "right around the corner"? Must be a New York block . . . [:D]

[michaelbaldur]

ORIGINAL: CrusssDaddy

Big bullet dodged - the Rapture is a fraud, so Delaytrix has a little more time to get WiF out. But I'm not liking the chances of anyone seeing this game. 2012 is right around the corner and those Mayans seem pretty adamant that 'That's all, folks!'... gonna be tough for the old farts here just to make it that long.

michaelbaldur: The fact that you're crowing about being a driving force among the playtest crew is damning commentary. You have stuck your foot in your mouth on this forum so many times your gums have athlete's foot. Plus you are a Peyton Manning fan... 'nuf said.

MWiF is amateur hour from top to bottom, and all the good intentions in the world aren't going to deliver a finished product. If you don't have it already, go get the ADG version - that's the only one forthcoming, and at least the money ends up in deserving pockets.

I really don´t see the point in you post. it is easy to complain, but where are the solutions.

but will answer with a few questions...

have you even seen my work on the game ????

and what have you done to finish the game ???

[bo]

ORIGINAL: CrusssDaddy

Big bullet dodged - the Rapture is a fraud, so Delaytrix has a little more time to get WiF out. But I'm not liking the chances of anyone seeing this game. 2012 is right around the corner and those Mayans seem pretty adamant that 'That's all, folks!'... gonna be tough for the old farts here just to make it that long.

michaelbaldur: The fact that you're crowing about being a driving force among the playtest crew is damning commentary. You have stuck your foot in your mouth on this forum so many times your gums have athlete's foot. Plus you are a Peyton Manning fan... 'nuf said.

MWiF is amateur hour from top to bottom, and all the good intentions in the world aren't going to deliver a finished product. If you don't have it already, go get the ADG version - that's the only one forthcoming, and at least the money ends up in deserving pockets.

Wow Crussdaddy I feel like a MWIF fanboy[;)] next to your comments, maybe Matrix people were hoping for the end of the world yesterday at 6pm GMT just to save face.[:D]

Bo

[bo]

ORIGINAL: michaelbaldur

ORIGINAL: CrusssDaddy

Big bullet dodged - the Rapture is a fraud, so Delaytrix has a little more time to get WiF out. But I'm not liking the chances of anyone seeing this game. 2012 is right around the corner and those Mayans seem pretty adamant that 'That's all, folks!'... gonna be tough for the old farts here just to make it that long.

michaelbaldur: The fact that you're crowing about being a driving force among the playtest crew is damning commentary. You have stuck your foot in your mouth on this forum so many times your gums have athlete's foot. Plus you are a Peyton Manning fan... 'nuf said.

MWiF is amateur hour from top to bottom, and all the good intentions in the world aren't going to deliver a finished product. If you don't have it already, go get the ADG version - that's the only one forthcoming, and at least the money ends up in deserving pockets.

I really don´t see the point in you post. it is easy to complain, but where are the solutions.

but will answer with a few questions...

have you even seen my work on the game ????

and what have you done to finish the game ???

Michael Michael Michael you let him pull your chain shame on you, you are above that post, I do apologize to everyone here, it seems every time I make a semi negative comment[once every 6 months] I wake up and arouse Crussdaddy, hopefully not sexually. I would like to see Crussdaddy become a beta tester and help out if he has that ability to help bring this game to a conclusion, not joking Cruss.

Bo

[yvesp]

ORIGINAL: macgregor

I believe Steve will make a pretty good AI -better than most games and certainly anything this size(that's a joke. Nothing is this size). The problem is for me, that a good AI will be no better than a weak AI, because I don't want to spend 6 months or more of my life playing against an AI. Triumph over what? A machine? Where's the glory in that? I guess I'm a 'team sport' kinda guy. Playing against an AI, to compare to someone else's result? Like a beauty contest? I don't watch qualifying runs, I watch the race(I mean ...if I was into racing).

I think you highlight the difference between those players who want an AI and those who don't.
The second play mainly for winning (against able opponents)
The first play mainly for the sheer pleasure of "recreating history"

That's two different audiences (which, sometimes, overlap.) For my part (and I know a bunch of people like me,) I don't care about beating a human opponent.

Yves

[HansHafen]

I like both. AI play is much faster and can be fun. But you really like beating a human player(s)!

[bo]

ORIGINAL: HansHafen

I like both. AI play is much faster and can be fun. But you really like beating a human player(s)!

I agree with you Hans, but in reality there is very few good AI games around at least I know of none. I think the biggest thing for me is to play when it is convenient for me, but being retired I guess there is no such thing. If the game is this difficult for Steve to complete what can be said for an AI? No knock against Steve just looking at the word "common sense". In the mean time I will continue to play World of Tanks on the internet, me and a million others[;)] if nothing else it teaches all ages what it must have been like to be in tank battles including me.

Bo

[Red Prince]

Here is an update for those of you who have been curious about the state of the beta-test games we run:

Earlier today, Steve released a new patch which addressed a number of bugs (17 fixes). I mentioned in post #2310:

. . . every time a major group of bugs is resolved we can move into an area of the game previously unavailable. That means fresh material to create bugs we haven't seen before.

Well, at least two of the fixes he made fall into this category, I think. They are items which effect game play incredibly. One has to do with the way minor country units are able to move, and the other, much more important fix has to do with using and saving oil, which should now function correctly (most of us will be checking this one, I'm sure). This is a critical advance in his work on the production bugs, in my opinion. The closer we get to playing as the game is intended to be played, rather than ignoring things we know are being worked on, the better able we are to accurately simulate a real game. That means we'll be using even more tools, tactics, forms . . . you name it. Yes, it'll mean we'll find more bugs, but each time Steve "finishes" a phase/sub-phase it brings the day that much closer when new reports will start to dry up.

I won't claim to have any clue when that will be, but I know things are definitely moving forward.

-Aaron

[Shannon V. OKeets]

June 1, 2011 Status Report for Matrix Games’ MWIF Forum


Accomplishments of May 2011


Project Management
I monitored all the threads in the MWIF World in Flames forum daily.

Rolf did a lot of work on converting old CWIF code so it will run under NetPlay - I incorporated that into the master source code this month.

Hardware and Software
The open items for Theme Engine remain unchanged from last month: (1) scroll bars for the detailed map, and (2) its inability to display detailed listings of file directories (i.e., the dates and stuff when opening or saving a file). Neither of these is important.

Beta Testing
I released versions 8.02.01 (16 fixes), 8.02.02 (1 fix), 8.02.03 (15 fixes), 8.02.05 (7 fixes), 8.02.06 (18 fixes), 8.02.07 (17 fixes), 8.03.00 (9 fixes), 8.03.01 (16 fixes) and 8.03.02 (16 fixes) to the beta testers last month. This totals 9 new versions and 115 fixes, which is slightly under my average number of fixes for a month. Mostly that is because the one change for version 8.02.02 was to incorporate all the modifications that Rolf provided, which converted CWIF code to MWIF Game Record Logs to support NetPlay. More on that below.

There are 75 bugs remaining in the sequence of play. Most of these are in the End-of-Turn phases. For example, Production Planning has 26, Production has 2, Conquest/Surrender has 3, Vichy has 3, and Liberation has 6. As for the impulse phases, Naval Combat has 12, Land Movement 4, and Air Missions 8. The air mission bugs are roughly half for very unusual circumstances and roughly half not reproducible. I am gradually transferring “not reproducible” bugs to their own category. I keep them around for a while to see if someone reports the same problem occurring again. Eventually I remove them completely as inexplicable - and probably a consequence of some other bug that had occurred earlier in the game.

Saved Games
Nothing major, just a few small tweaks to the format to support new variables and 1 bug fix.

Map and Units
Rob and Adam continue to send me new and/or updated naval and land unit writeups, respectively. I also corrected some data problems for City Based Volunteers.

Scenarios and Optional Rules
I made some progress on City Based Volunteers (there is still more to do) and fixed the remaining reported bugs in Warlords. I also did quite a bit of work on fixing bugs in the intersection of the Off City Reinforcements rules with other optional rules (e.g., Territorials). Both of those are now bug free to the best of my knowledge. There was also a bug in the later scenarios for setting up the Polish mechanized unit.

MWIF Game Engine and CWIF Conversion
Set NetPlay below.

I (well, actually it is usually a beta tester) keep finding places where the CWIF code did not handle all possible cases. These are unusual circumstances where the WIF FE rules are stretched to their breaking point.

For instance, minor country units are not permitted to enter the home country of another minor country on the same side unless Foreign Troop Commitment requirements have been met. That rule stops Hungarian units from entering Rumania, as one example. But in the case where the second minor country has been completely conquered, it seems that entry should be permitted. In one of the beta testers’ games the USSR had conquered Persia (which aligned to Japan) and then Italy aligned Iraq and had Iraqi units ready to enter and liberate Persia. Here the general rule would prohibit Iraqi units (minor country aligned to Italy) from entering Persia (minor country aligned to Japan, on the same side as Italy). But since Persia is completely conquered, it is now ‘owned’ by the USSR, with which Italy is at war, hence the Iraqi units are free to enter Persia. At least that is how I have coded it. My change is that if a minor country on your side has been completely conquered, then the FTC requirements no longer apply.

Another example is when the Collapse of Vichy France causes Vichy France controlled minor countries to become owned by an Axis major power which has a unit present in the minor country. For instance, if Italy has a unit in Vichy France controlled Tunisia, then the rules state that Tunisia goes to Italy. But the rules say nothing about if there are both German and Italian units present. I decided to count the number of units and ‘give’ the country to the Axis major power with the most units present.

Both the above examples are not covered by the WIF FE rules, so I put in additional code to cover these gaps in (what I consider) a reasonable manner.

Player Interface
I had to update the Unit Status Indicators yet again. There was a ‘hole’ in the logic so that land based air units at sea during naval combat, which were not participating in the combat, were shown without any status indicator. I added a new value for these units to indicate that they are still ‘flying’, if they are not part of the naval combat.

One of the goals I have for Production Planning is for a player to set up all his convoy routes and then use them turn after turn, with only minor tweaking necessary. That objective ran into trouble with the 4 NEI oil resources, where often in a game 2 are suppose to go to Japan and 2 to the Commonwealth. The difficulty was that which oil resources are assigned to whom might change from turn to turn, so the oil that had been routed by the Commonwealth to India last turn, can end up in being assigned to Japan in the next turn. Really this is a big mess to sort out in any simple way. The presence of partisans might prevent one or more of the oil points from being available. Combine that with the requirement that Japan gets its 2 oil points first and which major power sets up the partisans, and every neat little solution falls apart. I’m still working on this - for now I am simply sending the Palembang oil points to the Commonwealth and the other 2 to Japan. I’ll come back to this someday; but I do not deem ‘fixing’ this as crucial for releasing the game.

Internet - NetPlay
Rolf did a lot of work converting 20 routines from CWIF code to MWIF Game Record Logs. He tackled some of the most difficult items which involve moving units. There are less than 80 remaining to be converted. I will finish those off this month, hopefully with Rolf’s help.

Next month I plan on spending about half my time on NetPlay and half on fixing bugs in the sequence of play. It would be nice if I could get the code to the point that two beta testers could start running Barbarossa over the internet in June.

PBEM
Nothing new.

Artificial Intelligence (AI)
Peter is close to finishing the geographic breakdown for the AI Opponent. He has just one left to do: Atlantic South America. I still need to pick up the LAIO parser where Rolf left off. But that won’t happen until I kill off the last of the sequence of play bugs.

Player’s Manual
I made a couple of changes to bring Rules as Coded (RAC) up-to-date with MWIF deviations from Rules as Written (RAW). I also updated the bibliographies from Robert Jenkins for his writeups for the naval units.

Aaron has been reading through the largest section of the Players Manual: 8 Players Interface. He has been making some edits to the text, which he sends me as replacement paragraphs. There is also a lot of work remaining on updating screenshots of the forms. As Aaron as noted, I keep making small tweaks to them, so the accompanying text usually needs comparable modifications. I am not making a major push on this right now, but I like to keep whittling away at it so the effort required to polish it up for final release will be minimal.

Tutorials, Training Videos, and Context Sensitive Help
Nothing new.

Historical Video, Music, and Sound Effects
Nothing new.

Marketing
Nothing new.

Communications
Nothing new.

[Tophat1815]

So.......ah......maybe Christmas? or....ah.............maybe not? Oh yes,Christmas of 2011 I meant to say.

[marklv]

Christmas of 2012 is more likely. It will be fascinating to compare this game with Time of Fury and how the two compare, and now that Commander Europe at War has been upgraded to v2.0 the competition will be intense. I just hope this game will not get too bogged down in detail and ignore the bigger picture.