Mandatory Losses Not Enforced

[sablewyvern]

So, it would appear that mandatory losses (Winter, Engineer or ARM/MECH/MOT) are not actually enforced by the game.

This is especially problematic given that you can't go even go back and correct a mistake if it is noticed.

Any reason it's set up like this? Or is it a bug? I'm running 1.2.1.5, if it makes a difference.

[composer99]

I can't see how that's anything other than a bug.

[gravyhair]

I've seen them enforced multiple times in our games, so maybe you can be more specific ... ?

[sablewyvern]

ORIGINAL: gravyhair

I've seen them enforced multiple times in our games, so maybe you can be more specific ... ?

I've seen it come up twice. Both times it stated "1st loss must come from XXX", but you can still select whatever unit you want and click ok.

Most recently it was an Engineer unit used in a city assault, and previously it was MOT/MECH/ARM after a blitz.

[jcrohio]

I just had the same thing happen to the engineer unit in Interactive Tutorial 16 Land Unit Movement and Combat

[NCommander]

Its a known bug, and on the list.

[paulderynck]

And likely not a high priority since it can be enforced by the players, but it will get fixed at some point.

[joshuamnave]

I can't begin to tell you how much this response irks me. The entire game can be enforced by the players. I can get vassal and the wif module for free and enforce it by the players. I can set up the boardgame in my living room and enforce it by the players. The only reason to buy the computer game is so that I *don't* have to enforce it. When the software doesn't do it, it is a bug, period. And this one has been a known bug for over a year. Not fixing it is bull*(&#

[Centuur]

ORIGINAL: Zartacla

I can't begin to tell you how much this response irks me. The entire game can be enforced by the players. I can get vassal and the wif module for free and enforce it by the players. I can set up the boardgame in my living room and enforce it by the players. The only reason to buy the computer game is so that I *don't* have to enforce it. When the software doesn't do it, it is a bug, period. And this one has been a known bug for over a year. Not fixing it is bull*(&#

Bugs are fixed in a certain order. Bugs which can be enforced by the player by simply making the right decision are lower on the list as compared to bus which the player can't do anything about. That seems reasonable to me. The bug list isn't "first in, first out". I expect this bug to be one of the last to be fixed...

[sablewyvern]

Yeah, I didn't take Paul's response to indicate it's not important, just that it's not as important as others. Something that actively prevents correct enforcement is of more importance than something that relies on players paying attention and desiring to play within the rules.

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Zartacla

I can't begin to tell you how much this response irks me. The entire game can be enforced by the players. I can get vassal and the wif module for free and enforce it by the players. I can set up the boardgame in my living room and enforce it by the players. The only reason to buy the computer game is so that I *don't* have to enforce it. When the software doesn't do it, it is a bug, period. And this one has been a known bug for over a year. Not fixing it is bull*(&#

I did not say it was not a bug. I did not say it would not get fixed. AAMOF I don't know for sure if Steve may look at it and fix it sooner than later. I merely expressed my opinion, to which I am entitled, just as you are to yours.

[jusi]

In some cases, you have to lost 1 unit which should be 1 ENG, 1 PARA and 1 ARM (just one example). Is there a mandatory order or can you choose the one you prefer?

[Courtenay]

ORIGINAL: jusi

In some cases, you have to lost 1 unit which should be 1 ENG, 1 PARA and 1 ARM (just one example). Is there a mandatory order or can you choose the one you prefer?

There is a mandatory order. ENG units that provided a bonus must be lost first. Winterized units that provided a bonus must be second. HQ-ARM, ARM, or MECH on the blitz table are third. Invading or paradropping units when you don't take the hex are last, and must be eliminated even if all losses have been taken by other units.

For example, if you attack a city by paradrop in snow and use an ENG and a winterized unit, and take a loss of one, you must kill the ENG, the winterized units survives, and, only after you do that all the paradropped units die.

Note that currently MWiF has a bug here; because it does not do mandatory losses correctly, it will use the paradrop losses to absorb all the casualties, and the ENG will survive. This is a bug, and will eventually be fixed, but I do not expect it to be fixed soon.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Centuur
Bugs are fixed in a certain order. Bugs which can be enforced by the player by simply making the right decision are lower on the list as compared to bus which the player can't do anything about.

hmmm, that's great, but the game's been out for more than a year, with fixing bugs at the top of the list before moving to NetPlay, other scenarios, AI, etc., and they still haven't gotten to bugs they've known about almost since launch? Very disappointing...

[paulderynck]

You missed the monthly progress reports obviously. Game stopping bugs were to be fixed along with the following three areas focused upon, in order: Supply, Production and Naval bugs. Then NetPlay. We are now on NetPlay. Game stoppers will always get attention.

No one is happy there were as many bugs as there were upon release. The word count for RAW7 section 1.1 to just before the glossary is over 93000. Figuring 8 words per sentence, subtracting 10% for examples, and likely a rule that needed coding per every two sentences, you still get around 4000 rules that would have had to be coded. The game is a work of art and it's getting progressively better.

[goulash]

I have to share the same feelings as others here which is to express my disappointment that spending over 100 UK pounds to get this game at release and be 12 months from now and still unable to play a game as a noob without running into bugs which mean having to find workarounds is very disappointing.

As a new player to the digit,Al game only, I would like to have thought that a stable basic rules game would be the first priority.

I am not getting any updates and am not going to beta test each trial patch. The last official update has been some time now and it is sad that we have to wait and wait for this game to be playable without workarounds.

I don't care for net play or at until the rules etc are sorted. Progress on this game is too slow for the price that was asked for it so I can completely understand people when they rant. I feel the same.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck
You missed the monthly progress reports obviously.

Actually I review the forum on a regular basis; I never said that there hasn't been progress, but the problem is how much work had to be (and remains to be) done on the the game AFTER release. More than a year later, there are still bugs--apparently at least the ones that players are expected to work around, ala VASSAL. And of course no half-map scenarios, only beginning NetPlay, etc. not to mention the lack of AI for the foreseeable future.

ORIGINAL: paulderynck
No one is happy there were as many bugs as there were upon release.

OK, but I think it is more than fair that some of us should also be unhappy that these issues remain outstanding more than a year after release.

[Numdydar]

I can understand people feeling let down at the rate of progress, etc. But unlike so many games, even ones by Matrix, this one is still getting patches and progress is being made. Expectations that the game should have been perfect on release is a little extreme. The issue with all these games, WitP, WitE, even WitW, is that developers can only fix so many issues with the limited number of testers available.

Matrix did not expect this many issues with the release either. So no one really knew that the release was going to be like this. Issues yes, complete breakdown of game play no.

I am fully confident that everything will be resolved. Even the AI as there has already been a lot of work done on that. I am playing a GW game right now under the latest beta and it is working great.

As an interesting aside, people on the WitW forums are maing similar comments about that game and want to wait for patches, etc. as they do not want to be beta testers either [:D]

[NCommander]

Honestly, as long as we keep getting patches, I'm not going to complain. I'd be very angry if I spent $100 and we were still stuck with the game as it was released, but Steve has shown he's going to keep going at this until the game is fully bugproof, all the optionals are added, etc, and I'm perfectly fine with that.

[David Clark]

When considering which bugs need to be prioritized, I think it's important to also remember that the further development of WiF has a time limit - Steve is the sole developer, and his health is fragile. When he dies or retires due to poor health, the game will be abandoned by Matrix, and players will be left with whatever beta version was the last one to be released.

So if there are, lets say, three thousand remaining bugs, and Steve has the capacity to repair 300 of them before his age or declining health forces the abandonment of the project, it's apparently important to prioritize those bugs that are game-breaking. (I say apparently, because it's hard to imagine wanting to spend the last months or years of ones life bugfixing a niche product with no prospects of significant further sales. Maybe he feels differently - we all have different values I guess).

This is the main reason why I would really encourage Matrix to reconsider their decision to prevent the exposure of the Debug menu - when the game is abandoned, the players will have to work around all the remaining bugs, and our ability to do that without the debug menu will be greatly diminished. I would be reassured by a statement by Matrix that promised to release a debug-enabled final version following Steve's death or abandonment of the project.

It's also important to remember that new bugs are introduced every time a bug is fixed - regressions make the selection of bugfixes even more important. We don't want to encourage the fixing of minor bugs, if that fixing inevitably breaks major game systems.