Supply Across Straights

[Zorachus99]

It appears the game has a problem tracing supply across straights, when there are no enemy units to block supply across the straight. I cannot even reorganize.

The armor was OOS when it drove across the kerch peninsula, but I did expect it to re-organize. Now it's worth only 1 point at the beginning of the turn.

[Zorachus99]

Save game

[paulderynck]

I downloaded the game. You are playing both the Limited Supply across Straits and the LOS options. Because you can't trace supply through the Black Sea, you can't trace supply across the straits. A unit that can't trace an unlimited supply line to oil cannot re-org.

On the upside, this means Isolated Re-org - for oil dependent units - works!

Edit: It appears the game is not quite in accordance with the FAQ (Q2.4-7) here as no blocking enemy units are in the Black Sea. AAMOF the manual says: "9.6.2. LIMITED SUPPLY ACROSS STRAITS When this optional rule is in effect, the presence of enemy naval units in a sea area may prevent the use of the straits for tracing supply. Specifically, if the presence of enemy units prevents tracing an overseas supply path into the sea area that the straits cross, then: (1) resources cannot be transported across the straits, (2) units cannot trace supply across the straits, and (3) units cannot rail move across the straits. The effect of this rule is to make control of the associated sea area crucial when you want to use a straits."

So this is possibly a bug. But you have no CP in the Black Sea so supply cannot be traced.

[paulderynck]

Zorachus99, Because the interaction of Options 11 and 12 has been a very controversial issue on the rules forums - FREX why should a lack of supply across straits occur when at the same time there isn't an enemy naval unit within half a continent of the straits - with or without LOS! ?? - I re-orged your armor unit with a beta version and you can choose to use the attached save instead, depending what you think of this rules controversy - up to you.

[Courtenay]

We had this discussion a while ago. The problem is that an official (ADG) rules "clarification" broke LOS and supploy across strait. MWiF is correctly implementing the rules as currently interpreted.

I profoundly disagree with this interpretation, but that is the current official ruling.

See this thread:
tm.asp?m=3499808&mpage=1&key=Sicily&#3499808

[Zorachus99]

ORIGINAL: Courtenay

We had this discussion a while ago. The problem is that an official (ADG) rules "clarification" broke LOS and supploy across strait. MWiF is correctly implementing the rules as currently interpreted.

I profoundly disagree with this interpretation, but that is the current official ruling.

See this thread:
tm.asp?m=3499808&mpage=1&key=Sicily�

I've read the damn myself, there is no condition that blocks supply if there are no naval units to do so. The presence of a straights icon symbolizes the ability of LOCAL shipping to move across. There isn't a straight in the game you can drive an tank across.

Now you tell me some grognard has decided to change the way the rule works to make no sense?

Frankly I find this to be BS.

1) I don't know a single person who would interpret the rule this way.
2) If you are going to prevent supply from being traced across a straight, you might as well remove all of them, and by the way, sink Sicily into the ocean while you are at it, since I've been wondering why a SUB was preventing reorganization, which is specifically mentioned as not able to block supply.

One more game ruined.

I guess isolated reorganization is broken in both ways. Not allowing units that should re-organize, and then letting units which should not re-organize, do so.

Another non-bug. I should have known. If the rule is to stay the way it is, I think I will want my money back, because the game will be profoundly screwed up.

Lets face it, supply doesn't work. Most important feature of a game.

Considering everything I bring up is a non-bug, screw this game. I've wasted hundreds of hours Beta testing, and quit because I could test NOTHING due to the fact that Steve would not fix supply. After a few years, I just plain gave up and they removed me from the beta team.

Now I can see that the long term effect is that well over a year after release, after the game goes on sale, supply still doesn't work.

Well done Matrix Games.

I give up, and I will warn anyone from buying this broken game. The promises were too large, rules implemented incorrectly.

I value my time, and to find the game still doesn't work right on a fundamental level, just shows I haven't been having fun, I've been wasting my time, because the game I've been playing is fundamentally screwed up now.

I cannot even believe there was an argument about this rule, but seeing how it has been clarified to be stupid, wrong, and broken, what can I do?

I feel you owe me money for beta-testing this still NON-FUNCTIONAL GAME that I paid $100 for.

You can NEVER get supplies to Sicily without convoy points, but you can cross the straight? What idiot decided that made sense? In other words, ammunition and food are forbidden to cross, but 50 TON tanks are fine?

Idiocy. I fucking quit.

[Centuur]

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

ORIGINAL: Courtenay

We had this discussion a while ago. The problem is that an official (ADG) rules "clarification" broke LOS and supploy across strait. MWiF is correctly implementing the rules as currently interpreted.

I profoundly disagree with this interpretation, but that is the current official ruling.

See this thread:
tm.asp?m=3499808&mpage=1&key=Sicily�

I've read the damn myself, there is no condition that blocks supply if there are no naval units to do so. The presence of a straights icon symbolizes the ability of LOCAL shipping to move across. There isn't a straight in the game you can drive an tank across.

Now you tell me some grognard has decided to change the way the rule works to make no sense?

Frankly I find this to be BS.

1) I don't know a single person who would interpret the rule this way.
2) If you are going to prevent supply from being traced across a straight, you might as well remove all of them, and by the way, sink Sicily into the ocean while you are at it, since I've been wondering why a SUB was preventing reorganization, which is specifically mentioned as not able to block supply.

One more game ruined.

I guess isolated reorganization is broken in both ways. Not allowing units that should re-organize, and then letting units which should not re-organize, do so.

Another non-bug. I should have known. If the rule is to stay the way it is, I think I will want my money back, because the game will be profoundly screwed up.

Lets face it, supply doesn't work. Most important feature of a game.

Considering everything I bring up is a non-bug, screw this game. I've wasted hundreds of hours Beta testing, and quit because I could test NOTHING due to the fact that Steve would not fix supply. After a few years, I just plain gave up and they removed me from the beta team.

Now I can see that the long term effect is that well over a year after release, after the game goes on sale, supply still doesn't work.

Well done Matrix Games.

I give up, and I will warn anyone from buying this broken game. The promises were too large, rules implemented incorrectly.

I value my time, and to find the game still doesn't work right on a fundamental level, just shows I haven't been having fun, I've been wasting my time, because the game I've been playing is fundamentally screwed up now.

I cannot even believe there was an argument about this rule, but seeing how it has been clarified to be stupid, wrong, and broken, what can I do?

I feel you owe me money for beta-testing this still NON-FUNCTIONAL GAME that I paid $100 for.

You can NEVER get supplies to Sicily without convoy points, but you can cross the straight? What idiot decided that made sense? In other words, ammunition and food are forbidden to cross, but 50 TON tanks are fine?

Idiocy. I fucking quit.

This is the official ruling by ADG.

Q2.4-7 2.4.2 Option 12 (limited supply across straits):
When I use this option, should I modify it
to reflect the Option 11?
Yes. If you are playing with options 11
AND 12, if there are enemy units present
in the sea area, you can only satisfy the
condition for option 12 if you have a CP,
TRS or AMPH in the sea area. Date
08/06/1997, expanded 12/05/2008

That means that only if enemy units are present in the sea area, supply should be blocked.

This is a bug.

And please, stay civilized...

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

I've read the damn myself, there is no condition that blocks supply if there are no naval units to do so. The presence of a straights icon symbolizes the ability of LOCAL shipping to move across. There isn't a straight in the game you can drive an tank across.

Now you tell me some grognard has decided to change the way the rule works to make no sense?

Frankly I find this to be

..
etc.
..

Nice rant.

I gave you a fixed game file in post #4, if you want it. Or - don't use Option 11 and 12 together.

Since the time when supply was the major work focus, it is 99% working. AAMOF I've seen it working in a lot of places where the players are wrong about a rule, once they (or someone else) takes a second look. This is a case where a rule was implemented per the written word of RAW (you need a CP/TRS/Amph or you can't trace supply and that inhibits the Straits). So the FAQ interpretation got missed. So what? It has been reworded in the draft of the next rules set, and I'll bet people will still be confused. You take a couple isolated (non-intentional pun) cases and impugn the entire supply process as completely not functional?

Well, you are incorrect.

[Zorachus99]

I'm going to leave that previous ragepost up, mainly to show how frustrated some people feel when the game malfunctions.

So far, just like the other rule I brought up, it seems like there is no authority on whether this is a bug or not.

Specifically, in this thread, there are people who have told me that the problem is a bug, a controversial issue, and that it's not a bug.

After my opponent told me not to throw the baby out with the bathwater, I return, not because I'm particularly mollified, but because this is symptomatic of issues that come up. There is no authority on the forum other than Steve to say whether something is a bug, or how the game is supposed to work. Absent that kind of information, people are left hanging, not even sure if the bug is on some list in Hawaii somewhere. I don't think Steve should have to answer every bug report, but someone should be able to do so.

This game REALLY needs a patch that will prevent isolated disorganized units from re-organizing. It's nauseating that every game ADG ever published *DESTROYS* isolated units, and MWIF auto-reorganizes non-oil dependent units.

My current game is horked up, with Sicily become an early POW camp, for the last two turns at least, and it is what it is. I've been persuaded by a cooler head to 'just deal with it'.

Thanks for the offer to play with less realistic rules though, that really does not fix the problem after investing 50+ hours into this one game. I think this forum proves that people get ANGRY when they invest so many hours into a game that ends up with major bugs ruining *what could have been* the outcome. People immediately stop blaming themselves, and blame the game.

[Centuur]

You are entitled to your opinion. But I believe you are putting your rant at the wrong place. Send an official complaint to Matrix, perhaps that will convince them to put another programmer to work on MWIF to speed things up...

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

I'm going to leave that previous ragepost up, mainly to show how frustrated some people feel when the game malfunctions.

So far, just like the other rule I brought up, it seems like there is no authority on whether this is a bug or not.

Specifically, in this thread, there are people who have told me that the problem is a bug, a controversial issue, and that it's not a bug.

After my opponent told me not to throw the baby out with the bathwater, I return, not because I'm particularly mollified, but because this is symptomatic of issues that come up. There is no authority on the forum other than Steve to say whether something is a bug, or how the game is supposed to work. Absent that kind of information, people are left hanging, not even sure if the bug is on some list in Hawaii somewhere. I don't think Steve should have to answer every bug report, but someone should be able to do so.

This game REALLY needs a patch that will prevent isolated disorganized units from re-organizing. It's nauseating that every game ADG ever published *DESTROYS* isolated units, and MWIF auto-reorganizes non-oil dependent units.

My current game is horked up, with Sicily become an early POW camp, for the last two turns at least, and it is what it is. I've been persuaded by a cooler head to 'just deal with it'.

Thanks for the offer to play with less realistic rules though, that really does not fix the problem after investing 50+ hours into this one game. I think this forum proves that people get ANGRY when they invest so many hours into a game that ends up with major bugs ruining *what could have been* the outcome. People immediately stop blaming themselves, and blame the game.

This little video may not mollify you, but hopefully it will help you put things in perspective...

http://youtu.be/RvoXTPV1mWU

[Zorachus99]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

This is a case where a rule was implemented per the written word of RAW (you need a CP/TRS/Amph or you can't trace supply and that inhibits the Straits). So the FAQ interpretation got missed. So what? It has been reworded in the draft of the next rules set, and I'll bet people will still be confused. You take a couple isolated (non-intentional pun) cases and impugn the entire supply process as completely not functional?

Well, you are incorrect.

I know one of you WIF-lawyers insisted it work this way per RAW, if I had a guess it would be Patrice. Interestingly, I never came to the conclusion Steve did about restricted supply reading the rules, as common sense dictated that they should not conflict. I see this was clarified in a FAQ I've never read.

Bravo. I've been playing the game correctly all along, and those rules I was taught by those regular Wifcon guys were right.

What really bothers me here, and why I haven't continued to play despite my opponents entreaties, is that simply based on your comment here, this isn't going to be fixed until the next iteration of the game, after the AI is made.

You see, it has been clear that no new rules, will be implemented, so if you are saying the REORGANIZATION phase will not get fixed until the cows come home, well I better just quit.

Why would I quit? Because I have NO TOOL in which to correct the problem. NOTHING I CAN DO.

Apparently the beta-testers have a tool to 'fix' units. Release this tool, and you won't find people raging about the state of the game.

But instead my post will fall on deaf ears, and I have no recourse other than to gamely continue playing a game that has serious REORGANIZATION problems, which I can do nothing about, or not play.

Thanks. That video you made me shows you really have time on your hands. Ending with 'at least I won't blow my brains out', really wasn't necessary. You really are one to cheer a person up, but then again, trolling my posts as if they were a personal insult to you justifies it.

So yes, just to re-iterate, thanks for clarifying that this issue isn't going to be resolved for years.

I'm not your beta-tester, and I'm not submitting bugs because I enjoy submitting them. Clearly, people who can *barely* post a request on the forum get responses, from Steve, but this gets mockery.

Thanks.

[Centuur]

What do you want to hear? The bug is on the bug list and that's it. When it will get fixed, I don't know. This may be done in a year, two years, three or tomorrow. I don't care about this bug at all. Why: because of the way you are acting. Your behaviour is sounding like a spoiled kid who thinks that his bug needs to get fixed first...

Well, a spoiled kid should get a good spanking.

If you want your money back, start an official claim at Matrix and don't bother us with these kind of rants. If you want to contribute to this game: start behaving and stop accusing us of all kind of things. That's counterproductive.

[paulderynck]

Well I can see that the entreaty to keep things in perspective also fell on deaf ears. Of course what was really said at the very end was "Do whatever you like.". (In truth, "I'd rather blow my brains out" came before that.) The video was meant to be tension-release-funny and allow us all to take a look at things and think about what is really important in life and what is not.

And it's not true that there's NOTHING you can do. You could play without Option 12 (although that might mean restarting, there may be a way to turn it off mid-game by changing the game save file). You could put a CP in the Black Sea (although annoying to have to take a Combined action or alternately, with die roll control on, this could be done by artificially extending the turn after it ended, taking a combined and doing only that and then force end the turn.) Or for the rare instances where over the end of turn process, an oil dependent unit needs to be re-orged or a non-oil-dependent unit needs to stay disrupted, you could upload the save and request that it be done. I could do that, I have lots of time on my hands.

[Zorachus99]

ORIGINAL: Centuur

What do you want to hear? The bug is on the bug list and that's it. When it will get fixed, I don't know. This may be done in a year, two years, three or tomorrow. I don't care about this bug at all. Why: because of the way you are acting. Your behaviour is sounding like a spoiled kid who thinks that his bug needs to get fixed first...

Well, a spoiled kid should get a good spanking.

If you want your money back, start an official claim at Matrix and don't bother us with these kind of rants. If you want to contribute to this game: start behaving and stop accusing us of all kind of things. That's counterproductive.

Do you see my MatrixGames join date? I made an account when I found that Matrix Games was doing the MWIF development so that I could post to this forum. It's possible I was a beta tester before you had an account.

You can rant against my rants, which has it's own point, but my rants are specifically tied to bugs in the sequence of play that screw up my games. I've been here a long time, so when I disappear, it'll probably be the dirt nap.

I am counter-productive when things in process are wrong. It is interesting that the best rules lawyer on the forum (Patrice) was also the very most difficult to work with at times when he didn't agree with you. A man gifted with high intelligence can easily rationalize or counter-rationalize any argument. It must be some artifact of the Dunning-Kreuger effect in reverse. Typically the guy was right 99.5% of the time. The other 0.5% was oh so painful to work with. I personally contributed some important points in the development of this game, and actually did some work, and still cannot believe I won a few of those arguments.

But I know what is discussed on the Beta Forum really CANNOT be aired publicly. For me, it's the best, because I don't have the time to commit to discussing a salient point, much less much time to play this incredibly long game. Therefore things get missed.

You answered my question in the first sentence by the way. I'm pretty sure you and Paul are both beta-testers. Right now your baby is unfinished, and you are a bit defensive, but I wont fault you, I've been a dick, and I know it.

All I really wanted to know is if it really was a bug. Reference my ragepost in response to the wrong answer.

[Zorachus99]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Well I can see that the entreaty to keep things in perspective also fell on deaf ears. Of course what was really said at the very end was "Do whatever you like.". (In truth, "I'd rather blow my brains out" came before that.) The video was meant to be tension-release-funny and allow us all to take a look at things and think about what is really important in life and what is not.

And it's not true that there's NOTHING you can do. You could play without Option 12 (although that might mean restarting, there may be a way to turn it off mid-game by changing the game save file). You could put a CP in the Black Sea (although annoying to have to take a Combined action or alternately, with die roll control on, this could be done by artificially extending the turn after it ended, taking a combined and doing only that and then force end the turn.) Or for the rare instances where over the end of turn process, an oil dependent unit needs to be re-orged or a non-oil-dependent unit needs to stay disrupted, you could upload the save and request that it be done. I could do that, I have lots of time on my hands.

Yep, I know there are a ton of ways I can address the situation in the current game. If/When I return to it, I'll likely do some rescue work to tend to all the units which were unable to reorganize. My disorganized/sacrificed units are simply what they are. Amusingly, I think there is a Sicilian bug in there, because on one of those end of turns, Italy had no oil to use, but the Italian aircraft in Sicily seem to have reorganized. Not very important actually.

Save your time for more important things, I find it unacceptable that you would offer reorganize my units. That is beyond any scope of unfairness, and it's far too kind. My game is a bit broken because, I am dumb and didn't know there was a bug. I know I can't depend on a fix, and there are other even more important bugs that must be quashed. I am a baby, and can't wait my turn. I know all of my bugs are low on the list, it's because I am a *invective here*. I'm dealing with stuff that makes me act like a prig some chunk of the time.

BTW, I wouldn't have been so irritated in the first place, the responses from Courtenay, Paul, and Centuur agreed with each other. They didn't. I'm glad to hear this is classified as bug, and not a feature. Or I could be wrong...

Next week I'll probably resurrect the main thread about supply and reorganization. Not because I hate the game, but because I want it to be perfect, or at least somewhat close enough for competitive play. It's not there yet, and I'm guessing a large part of your audience doesn't have the patience to report a bug, and give up without a peep.

Back to the point though, I try my best to ensure that people know these issues are important, but often, it's unacknowledged.

Wait until you design a car, and the first person that doesn't know you designed it, calls it a piece of carp for some very minor detail, straight to your face. Well I called the situation with reorganization a piece of carp, and I still agree with myself. Yes, it could be worse, but it isn't, yet.

I do know I have no control, but I have my words. If you don't like them, there is a green dot next to my name you can use if they pain you.

[joshuamnave]

ORIGINAL: Centuur

What do you want to hear? The bug is on the bug list and that's it. When it will get fixed, I don't know. This may be done in a year, two years, three or tomorrow. I don't care about this bug at all. Why: because of the way you are acting. Your behaviour is sounding like a spoiled kid who thinks that his bug needs to get fixed first...

Well, a spoiled kid should get a good spanking.

Screw you too. If it's a bug, it needs to be fixed and that has zero to do with the personality or attitude of the person reporting the bug.

Yes, those of us that do the most bug reporting are also the most frustrated, and we're also the ones that are the most ignored by Steve and the most maligned by the Matrix cheerleaders.

[warspite1]

If it's a bug, it needs to be fixed and that has zero to do with the personality or attitude of the person reporting the bug.

Correct - and its on the list. What makes you think Steve does not think this bug needs to be fixed any more than others out there? You know from previous communications that bug-fixing is, to an extent, taking second place to getting at least a limited netplay working. That is Matrix decision. As Centuur said, a better place for your anger may be at Matrix door in this regard.

Yes, those of us that do the most bug reporting are also the most frustrated

Not necessarily true, how would you know that? I suspect that anyone that has tried playing the game is frustrated - and understandably so. The game is a jewel - but tantalisingly it remains out of reach (in terms of guaranteed bug free gaming) and that is frustrating as hell FOR ALL.

we're also the ones that are the most ignored by Steve

Again, on what do you base that comment? You think the beta testers get one on one, undivided attention? That every bug they find is fixed pronto? Ask anyone that plays the game and I'm sure we all have our pet peeves. Personally I do not give two hoots for Limited Overseas Supply. That is not to downplay Zorachus99 - as clearly it is a big issue for him. However I am mighty miffed about peacekeepers not working - but that too is on the list and I wait for the day it gets fixed. But I guarantee your treatment is no different to anyone else.

As has been said a billion times, there is (sadly) only one Steve, he cannot fix everything at once so if you think you are being ignored, then its nothing specific to you. Whether you believe it or not, your (and people like you (non beta-testers)) contributions to bug finding are invaluable and greatly appreciated.

most maligned by the Matrix cheerleaders.

Really? Who are these Matrix cheerleaders? All I see are a bunch of people who want to play this great game. Some accept what the position is and try and stay positive so that this game eventually gets done, and some don't and they can't help frustration boiling over with the situation (and yes I guarantee that applies to just about every beta tester at some point or other).

Just because a bunch of people realise that without Steve and Matrix there is no World In Flames on the computer, doesn't make them "Matrix Cheerleaders" does it? They should be applauded for their staying power rather than maligned. If they walk where the hell would this project be?

End of the day we are all on the same side here.