Sad, sad, sad.......

[Zorachus99]

I bought the game because I'm getting old, and I make far too many simple mistakes on supply, and other complex issues playing the boardgame, and online with Vassal. I just need something to calculate supply, and prevent illegal moves

However, if you are any fan of SPI or other old wargames, realize that the most important aspect of this game has 2 serious issues.

1) Isolated units are automatically re-organized regardless of whether they can trace supply. You literally cannot pocket the enemy, wear them down, and kill them.
2) The finer points of tracing supply across straights is broken, so I had to abandon the first game I've been able to play past the first turn.

Paul offered to fix each supply problem I come across with a tool he has, but unfortunately, that brings me back to my first sentence. I sometimes get supply wrong for a long time until I take the time to investigate it. Why can't the customers have the same tool? Everyone cannot rely on beta-testers to fix their games to proceed. That is not a functional or realistic process. I tried to re-start a new game, but recently got stuck because a unit embarked on a transport ended up trapped in a space vortex, no point in submitting the bug though, my last bug report had 200+ views and zero replies.

So I'm more than 50 hours into my purchase since December 2013, and like many other people, have games I cannot finish. During those 50 hours, the game prevented hundreds, if not thousands of mistakes I might have made. No joke.

Do I feel like I got $100 worth of value out of the game? Not yet. Like many games, WIF will be in the discount bargain bin before it works properly. If the game worked in just one mode without bugs, it could be a cult classic, but as it is, it's simply frustrating for some of us.

I would really like to play this game to the end at least once.

[jc4751]

While I haven't purchased the game yet (waiting on tax refund), I've been watching the forums, reading up on the AARs and whatnot, and it does seem like the forums are dying. Some will say that this is because people are playing the game and not posting, but I don't think there's much merit to the statement. People like to talk about what they're doing and if they're playing a game, they're going to be talking about it.

Unfortunately, I don't see this game getting the traction it deserves, or needs in order to be a sustained effort, and I think others probably share some of the same concerns:

As a professional dev:

1. One guy coding it. This means that the project is at risk if he gets tired of it or is not able to continue for any reason. Sure, others could take a look at the code base, but, speaking from experience, it's often easier to throw away a code base and start fresh. There is also a lack of design review, sanity checks, and general "what ifs" when taking on a large project like this by yourself. I'm not impugning Steve's skills at all by noting this, only that, objectively speaking, it's an immense project.

2. The technology used -- I believe it's coded in Delphi? That makes me concerned for "future proofing." It's definitely not as widely used as Java, C++, or C#, and also means that anyone potentially helping with the project is going to have to get up to speed with the IDE and language first.

3. Stability -- reading through the bug reports about freezes and showstoppers reminds me of the "whack-a-mole death spiral" that happens when a code base becomes too complex to maintain.

4. Hungarian notation, in at least one code snippet. (yes, that's a joke, not a serious point)

As a gamer:

1. Price point. I understand the "Well, you get X hours of enjoyment out of it." While it's a valid argument, I suppose, $100 is still asking a lot for a computer game. The competition for a strategic WW2 game is considerably cheaper, whatever their merits as games are. I strongly think it was a mistake to argue that the manuals make the price point worthwhile -- it's like saying you have to buy a car with a gold-plated steering wheel, and the price of the car is worth it because of the gold-plated steering wheel. If people don't see the value, they're going to move on, no matter how good it seems.

2. No AI. While this is a forgivable sin for some, and the AI may not be up to the standards of a human player, the fact remains that most people expect this to be a standard feature in a game. I suspect that most people, like myself, are lifelong wargamers and are used to playing solitaire, this is probably becoming a decreasingly acceptable mode of play.

3. The presentation layer looks very dated in comparison to other offerings.

4. There is also the open question of creating a computerized version of a wargame, and I would think a computerized version of squad leader would run into the same sort of issue. Yes, a lot of people have played and enjoyed the board game, but at the end of the day, is the appeal for the game that it gives a good coverage of the subject matter, or that it's a good translation of a previous attempt to cover the subject matter? I think an apt comparison would be a computerized version of Pacific War or War in the Pacific to WitP:AE, or maybe Squad Leader to Steel Panthers, etc.

The positives:

1. WiF is a wargame, Hearts of Iron is a strategy game. While I like HoI, I've been interested in MWiF precisely because of the more wargamey nature of it.

2. There is a solid and well-developed rules set to draw on. This doesn't have the problem of trying to both define a rules set AND the code. People have vetted the design of the game over the years and have come to like it. Unlike ASL, WiF actually seems to lend itself to computerization, because the while real-world action is being simulated in the rules, it's not designed as an alternate means of reflecting reality, but as an abstraction of it. If you want to ponder that a moment, think about the defensive fire rules in ASL vs how they are handled in Close Combat or something. Reading over the AARs, I feel like "Okay, this makes sense and is intuitive."

3. While I have never spoken with Steve, it's obvious that this is not a cash grab on his part, and that he has poured an awful lot of time and effort into it. I would like to think that passion for a project brings a quality to it that isn't typically found in other efforts like the umpteenth "Flappy Bird" clone.

Well, anyway, those are my thoughts on it, and I've tried to be as objective as possible. Like I said, I plan to buy it, partly to support continued development, and partly because it really is unique. However, I'm not exactly optimistic about the future state of the game, and wonder if it would take a reboot of the code base and a larger team at some point to make it be what it should be.

[etsadler]

As to the idea that the forum is lightly populated and used I can say this: I visit this forum virtually every day. Every day there has been something posted in the MWiF forum. Many of the other game forums can't say that. I do not believe I have ever checked this forum and not seen something new. I'm not saying it is busy, vibrant, etc., but its not dead.

[MorningDew]

I purchased, have read and dabbled, but find it overwhelming to date. I do think getting NetPlay working properly will have a positive impact. If I can find another person to play, I am more likely to commit.

I believe another big help would be some "Let's Play" videos of the smaller two scenarios. I would really enjoy watching some veterans playing through Barbarossa and Guadalcanal and listening to their commentary. I believe the odds are much higher that I would jump in having witnessed an actual game. The tutorials are too isolated on one topic so do not have the same impact.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Centuur

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: cataphract88

This topic makes depressing reading. In solitaire mode, at least, have the bugs been ironed out yet?

warspite1

Nope. As you can see from the AAR's the game is playable in solitaire mode, but sometimes you have to ignore some things and just carry on e.g. not being able to send an Italian resource to a factory, some supply issues etc. It comes down to whether your love of the game is sufficient to overcome the issues or not.

As long as there are fatal bugs in the program, I don't consider it to be playable... To much isn't working as it should. Now, perhaps that is too harsh to conclude, but that is how I see things. One can deal with bugs when one can work around them. You could deal with bugs like not enforcing mandatory losses (since a player can take that loss themselves). But if a game freezes on the choice of naval combats, or when you are intercepting a moving stack of naval units, or when you choose a US entry option... Those things should be dealt with first and get rid of. Get solitair working in the basic game first, without any mad excepts or freezes, that should be the first goal, IMHO...

warspite1

Well we made our feelings known on this at the time, but Matrix felt that they could not ignore netplay any longer. It's their gig so nothing we can do but get on with it - but like you I still think it was the wrong call.

That call looks even more wrong now that we have shown PBEM is possible using solitaire mode. So what you end up with is solitaire, PBEM and netplay players all frustrated instead of just netplay.....

[rkr1958]

ORIGINAL: Centuur

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: cataphract88

This topic makes depressing reading. In solitaire mode, at least, have the bugs been ironed out yet?

warspite1

Nope. As you can see from the AAR's the game is playable in solitaire mode, but sometimes you have to ignore some things and just carry on e.g. not being able to send an Italian resource to a factory, some supply issues etc. It comes down to whether your love of the game is sufficient to overcome the issues or not.

As long as there are fatal bugs in the program, I don't consider it to be playable... To much isn't working as it should. Now, perhaps that is too harsh to conclude, but that is how I see things. One can deal with bugs when one can work around them. You could deal with bugs like not enforcing mandatory losses (since a player can take that loss themselves). But if a game freezes on the choice of naval combats, or when you are intercepting a moving stack of naval units, or when you choose a US entry option... Those things should be dealt with first and get rid of. Get solitair working in the basic game first, without any mad excepts or freezes, that should be the first goal, IMHO...

I've played fully through the global war scenario once (with AAR), the Guadalcanal scenario once (with AAR), the Barbarossa scenario 4 or 5 times and the Global War scenario stopped at various points (from early 1940 to late 1942) due to poor strategic decisions on my part a half-dozen times. During all those plays I've never encountered a fatal error that forced me to stop the game. Now, I will say that I've encountered my share of freezes and mad exception crashes, which forced me to go back to the latest autosave and pick the game up from there. While bothersome these freezes and crashes from my experience / estimate don't occur that frequently. I'd estimate they occur only once every 5 to 10-hours of game time.

So I'm confused when others (just no you) say the game is unplayable because of fatal bugs. Maybe I don't know what you mean by a fatal bug? But when I get a crash I go back to the latest autosave and then get the game past the crash even if it require different move(s) or combat(s).

[bo]

ORIGINAL: jc4751

While I haven't purchased the game yet (waiting on tax refund), I've been watching the forums, reading up on the AARs and whatnot, and it does seem like the forums are dying. Some will say that this is because people are playing the game and not posting, but I don't think there's much merit to the statement. People like to talk about what they're doing and if they're playing a game, they're going to be talking about it.

Unfortunately, I don't see this game getting the traction it deserves, or needs in order to be a sustained effort, and I think others probably share some of the same concerns:

As a professional dev:

1. One guy coding it. This means that the project is at risk if he gets tired of it or is not able to continue for any reason. Sure, others could take a look at the code base, but, speaking from experience, it's often easier to throw away a code base and start fresh. There is also a lack of design review, sanity checks, and general "what ifs" when taking on a large project like this by yourself. I'm not impugning Steve's skills at all by noting this, only that, objectively speaking, it's an immense project.

2. The technology used -- I believe it's coded in Delphi? That makes me concerned for "future proofing." It's definitely not as widely used as Java, C++, or C#, and also means that anyone potentially helping with the project is going to have to get up to speed with the IDE and language first.

3. Stability -- reading through the bug reports about freezes and showstoppers reminds me of the "whack-a-mole death spiral" that happens when a code base becomes too complex to maintain.

4. Hungarian notation, in at least one code snippet. (yes, that's a joke, not a serious point)

As a gamer:

1. Price point. I understand the "Well, you get X hours of enjoyment out of it." While it's a valid argument, I suppose, $100 is still asking a lot for a computer game. The competition for a strategic WW2 game is considerably cheaper, whatever their merits as games are. I strongly think it was a mistake to argue that the manuals make the price point worthwhile -- it's like saying you have to buy a car with a gold-plated steering wheel, and the price of the car is worth it because of the gold-plated steering wheel. If people don't see the value, they're going to move on, no matter how good it seems.

2. No AI. While this is a forgivable sin for some, and the AI may not be up to the standards of a human player, the fact remains that most people expect this to be a standard feature in a game. I suspect that most people, like myself, are lifelong wargamers and are used to playing solitaire, this is probably becoming a decreasingly acceptable mode of play.

3. The presentation layer looks very dated in comparison to other offerings.

4. There is also the open question of creating a computerized version of a wargame, and I would think a computerized version of squad leader would run into the same sort of issue. Yes, a lot of people have played and enjoyed the board game, but at the end of the day, is the appeal for the game that it gives a good coverage of the subject matter, or that it's a good translation of a previous attempt to cover the subject matter? I think an apt comparison would be a computerized version of Pacific War or War in the Pacific to WitP:AE, or maybe Squad Leader to Steel Panthers, etc.

The positives:

1. WiF is a wargame, Hearts of Iron is a strategy game. While I like HoI, I've been interested in MWiF precisely because of the more wargamey nature of it.

2. There is a solid and well-developed rules set to draw on. This doesn't have the problem of trying to both define a rules set AND the code. People have vetted the design of the game over the years and have come to like it. Unlike ASL, WiF actually seems to lend itself to computerization, because the while real-world action is being simulated in the rules, it's not designed as an alternate means of reflecting reality, but as an abstraction of it. If you want to ponder that a moment, think about the defensive fire rules in ASL vs how they are handled in Close Combat or something. Reading over the AARs, I feel like "Okay, this makes sense and is intuitive."

3. While I have never spoken with Steve, it's obvious that this is not a cash grab on his part, and that he has poured an awful lot of time and effort into it. I would like to think that passion for a project brings a quality to it that isn't typically found in other efforts like the umpteenth "Flappy Bird" clone.

Well, anyway, those are my thoughts on it, and I've tried to be as objective as possible. Like I said, I plan to buy it, partly to support continued development, and partly because it really is unique. However, I'm not exactly optimistic about the future state of the game, and wonder if it would take a reboot of the code base and a larger team at some point to make it be what it should be.

Plus 1, well said.[;)]

Bo

[bo]

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

ORIGINAL: Centuur

ORIGINAL: warspite1


warspite1

Nope. As you can see from the AAR's the game is playable in solitaire mode, but sometimes you have to ignore some things and just carry on e.g. not being able to send an Italian resource to a factory, some supply issues etc. It comes down to whether your love of the game is sufficient to overcome the issues or not.

As long as there are fatal bugs in the program, I don't consider it to be playable... To much isn't working as it should. Now, perhaps that is too harsh to conclude, but that is how I see things. One can deal with bugs when one can work around them. You could deal with bugs like not enforcing mandatory losses (since a player can take that loss themselves). But if a game freezes on the choice of naval combats, or when you are intercepting a moving stack of naval units, or when you choose a US entry option... Those things should be dealt with first and get rid of. Get solitair working in the basic game first, without any mad excepts or freezes, that should be the first goal, IMHO...

I've played fully through the global war scenario once (with AAR), the Guadalcanal scenario once (with AAR), the Barbarossa scenario 4 or 5 times and the Global War scenario stopped at various points (from early 1940 to late 1942) due to poor strategic decisions on my part a half-dozen times. During all those plays I've never encountered a fatal error that forced me to stop the game. Now, I will say that I've encountered my share of freezes and mad exception crashes, which forced me to go back to the latest autosave and pick the game up from there. While bothersome these freezes and crashes from my experience / estimate don't occur that frequently. I'd estimate they occur only once every 5 to 10-hours of game time.

So I'm confused when others (just no you) say the game is unplayable because of fatal bugs. Maybe I don't know what you mean by a fatal bug? But when I get a crash I go back to the latest autosave and then get the game past the crash even if it require different move(s) or combat(s).

I think the point that some posters are trying to make is that you should not have to go back to autosave [:(]

Bo

[rkr1958]

ORIGINAL: bo

I think the point that some posters are trying to make is that you should not have to go back to autosave [:(]

Bo

Bo, I can understand that. But let me pose a comparison for thought. In a play through of WiF with cardboard and paper how often do you think that folks have to go back and "fix" something that they messed up either rules or mechanic wise? Isn't having to go back to an autosave for the occasional crash or freeze in some sense equivalent to that?

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: rkr1958
Bo, I can understand that. But let me pose a comparison for thought. In a play through of WiF with cardboard and paper how often do you think that folks have to go back and "fix" something that they messed up either rules or mechanic wise? Isn't having to go back to an autosave for the occasional crash or freeze in some sense equivalent to that?

At the very, very least: least once per session. Just finished one for today and been playing for an hour and 15 minutes. So anticipating today's count will be two...

[Centuur]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: rkr1958
Bo, I can understand that. But let me pose a comparison for thought. In a play through of WiF with cardboard and paper how often do you think that folks have to go back and "fix" something that they messed up either rules or mechanic wise? Isn't having to go back to an autosave for the occasional crash or freeze in some sense equivalent to that?

At the very, very least: least once per session. Just finished one for today and been playing for an hour and 15 minutes. So anticipating today's count will be two...

There is something else to consider too. You play a game on a strategic level and everything to do needs to be prepared. If you don't prepare for things, World In Flames as a game has got the nasty thing build in it that your opponent will crush you if you are not prepared. Sometimes you prepare for things which are about to happen in a couple of turns. Suddenly, the game doesn't allow you to proceed anymore, due to a fatal bug. For example: in the AAR I'm doing, I'm preparing the take over of Northern Ireland by the US. Got a nice stash of oil ready to give to the US by the CW in Belfast last turn. The US has got ships and manpower at sea to sail into port. Suddenly, everything freezes when I choose that US entry option... To counter the effect this is having, one should probably go back at least two or three turns, since preparations started the moment the US failed the attempts to DoW the Japanese three times.
You simply can't have the game freezing on you on important decisions like choosing US entry options.
The same with naval combat. If one side aborts, those ships can be intercepted in the next sea area when they have to move this to get to a port, accodering to the rules. It's pretty discouraging to see something going wrong there too. Nothing better than to kill off damaged ships when they are forced into the zero box while trying to reach a save port.
Just a couple of things here, which are so important to the boardgame, which need to be running smoothly and nicely, to give you really the flavour of the game.

Sure, the game isn't that bad. Sure, you can get a whole game done if you simply ignore certain actions you might be able to use. But that's not how the game should work, isn't it...

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

ORIGINAL: bo

I think the point that some posters are trying to make is that you should not have to go back to autosave [:(]

Bo

Bo, I can understand that. But let me pose a comparison for thought. In a play through of WiF with cardboard and paper how often do you think that folks have to go back and "fix" something that they messed up either rules or mechanic wise? Isn't having to go back to an autosave for the occasional crash or freeze in some sense equivalent to that?

warspite1

Good point rkr1958 but with just one counter. What you say is absolutely right - rules discussions over the years have shown just how many of us regularly played rules wrong - and that's just the ones we know about!!

Similarly there must have been hundreds of missed cases of OOS or illegal moves or whatever that were missed by the players. We had to start a Global War game again once because the German player forgot to place his 1941 force pool and didn't notice until he complained that he no units to by about half way through the year.... he was popular...

The caveat? This is the age of computer games and I am sure the hope was that this brilliant game would be opened up to a whole generation of gamers - but necesarily that means gamers who expect their games to you know.. work? As someone I think pointed out earlier, knowing the game at least allows the ability to work round because you know what is wrong and what should have happened.

But when you don't know a game like this and are trying to get to grips with the monster, what you really don't need is a convoy system that takes half your life to work out and then, when you hit a problem, is that because you understand the rule wrong, its or bug or is the program just being tempremental? Same with bugs and...and.... [uninstalls game in a fit of anger, frustration and feeling of wasted money].

[bo]

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

ORIGINAL: bo

I think the point that some posters are trying to make is that you should not have to go back to autosave [:(]

Bo

Bo, I can understand that. But let me pose a comparison for thought. In a play through of WiF with cardboard and paper how often do you think that folks have to go back and "fix" something that they messed up either rules or mechanic wise? Isn't having to go back to an autosave for the occasional crash or freeze in some sense equivalent to that?

Good point I would never have thought of that because I never had the pleasure of playing the board game. My sons played Advance squad leader which IMHO is on par with WIF even though one is strategic and one is tactical, both wonderful board games.

I played computer 3rd Reich for several years and outside of the fact that the AI got lost in some situations it was a fun quick beer and pretzels game.

I never had the pleasure of playing 3rd Reich against a human opponent. There was IMO no issues with the game other than the AI being slightly incompetent adversary, even though I found it to be quite adequate for the first year game wise.

But that game was released if my memory servers me correctly without or with very little minor bugs which were quickly corrected. I feel there is no comparison between 3rd Reich and MWIF for realism of a strategic nature, with MWIF the programming had to be much tougher than 3rd Reich granted but you would think with the advancement of computers and programming language since 3rd Reich was made that we would not have these problems that we are having with MWIF. Something is not right.

With deep regret for saying this I feel I will never enjoy playing MWIF as it was meant to be played with minor bugs that really do not interrupt the flow of the game, a competent AI, Pbem and a hot seat free of most troubles. Do hope I am wrong.

Bo

[bo]

ORIGINAL: AndrewKurtz

I purchased, have read and dabbled, but find it overwhelming to date. I do think getting NetPlay working properly will have a positive impact. If I can find another person to play, I am more likely to commit.

I believe another big help would be some "Let's Play" videos of the smaller two scenarios. I would really enjoy watching some veterans playing through Barbarossa and Guadalcanal and listening to their commentary. I believe the odds are much higher that I would jump in having witnessed an actual game. The tutorials are too isolated on one topic so do not have the same impact.

Hi Andrew

When I first became a beta tester for MWIF I was overwhelmed as I never saw this game before but after surviving the initial gasps by me I plodded on and the game took life at least for me, I started the first AAR for Guadalcanal because I wanted to introduce invasions of islands and naval warfare. And if a newbie like me could understand this brilliant game so will you.

I apologize for myself only for the state of affairs that this game is in and that it was even released. I will be glad to help you with Guadalcanal if you so wish by e-mail or by posting here.

my e-mail is "bowenw1@verizon.net" Guadalcanal is a short but sound scenario to do with naval warfare which I believe is the hardest to learn of all the game play other then production.

Bo

[AlphonseZukor]

I'm still interested in this game. I'm just waiting for the AI (as well as money to buy a new computer).

[Missouri_Rebel]

I think Warspite makes a great point. Learning this monster is definitely a labor of love, one which I think rkr1958 has put the best effort in ever. As to Warspites comment about learning things that could be wrong, broken, not fully functional, not implemented in the most straight forward way, or just a bug has to be the biggest hurdle to overcome.

Is this game A Bridge Too Far to deliver on the computer? I don't think so. I'd be more worried about that being the case if there wasn't someone so dedicated as Steve seems to be. I'm not speaking to how it should be, I'm talking about the reality of the situation now. He plugs away and I hope that one day the game will be where everyone wants it to be. I haven't seen anything in any of his postings that leads me to believe that it will be abandoned. I certainly hope it won't anyways.

People always say that ASL would be impossible to ever code. Personally, I think WiF is a much larger task.

[jc4751]

ORIGINAL: Missouri_Rebel

I think Warspite makes a great point. Learning this monster is definitely a labor of love, one which I think rkr1958 has put the best effort in ever. As to Warspites comment about learning things that could be wrong, broken, not fully functional, not implemented in the most straight forward way, or just a bug has to be the biggest hurdle to overcome.

Is this game A Bridge Too Far to deliver on the computer? I don't think so. I'd be more worried about that being the case if there wasn't someone so dedicated as Steve seems to be. I'm not speaking to how it should be, I'm talking about the reality of the situation now. He plugs away and I hope that one day the game will be where everyone wants it to be. I haven't seen anything in any of his postings that leads me to believe that it will be abandoned. I certainly hope it won't anyways.

People always say that ASL would be impossible to ever code. Personally, I think WiF is a much larger task.

The thing that would murder coding ASL is the Special Rules in scenarios. I once started doing up a preliminary design for a computer ASL, as a thought exercise, and realized that it would take a fairly robust rules engine to handle all the "exception to the rule" that those bring to the table. The rest of the game was fairly straightforward stuff, even including the maps and whatnot, because of its relatively generic nature. Truthfully, I think that if ASL were coded as designed, it would be excruciatingly tedious to play, which is probably why there's never been a true translation of the game to the PC. From what I've read with the AARs, WiF seems to be enhanced by hitting the PC, not diminished by it, even with the current state of the game.

[Missouri_Rebel]

ORIGINAL: jc4751

ORIGINAL: Missouri_Rebel

I think Warspite makes a great point. Learning this monster is definitely a labor of love, one which I think rkr1958 has put the best effort in ever. As to Warspites comment about learning things that could be wrong, broken, not fully functional, not implemented in the most straight forward way, or just a bug has to be the biggest hurdle to overcome.

Is this game A Bridge Too Far to deliver on the computer? I don't think so. I'd be more worried about that being the case if there wasn't someone so dedicated as Steve seems to be. I'm not speaking to how it should be, I'm talking about the reality of the situation now. He plugs away and I hope that one day the game will be where everyone wants it to be. I haven't seen anything in any of his postings that leads me to believe that it will be abandoned. I certainly hope it won't anyways.

People always say that ASL would be impossible to ever code. Personally, I think WiF is a much larger task.

The thing that would murder coding ASL is the Special Rules in scenarios. I once started doing up a preliminary design for a computer ASL, as a thought exercise, and realized that it would take a fairly robust rules engine to handle all the "exception to the rule" that those bring to the table. The rest of the game was fairly straightforward stuff, even including the maps and whatnot, because of its relatively generic nature. Truthfully, I think that if ASL were coded as designed, it would be excruciatingly tedious to play, which is probably why there's never been a true translation of the game to the PC. From what I've read with the AARs, WiF seems to be enhanced by hitting the PC, not diminished by it, even with the current state of the game.

Didnt mean to take the thread this way. But yeah. I agree about the special scenario rules. I hadn't thought of that.

[bo]

ORIGINAL: Missouri_Rebel

ORIGINAL: jc4751

ORIGINAL: Missouri_Rebel

I think Warspite makes a great point. Learning this monster is definitely a labor of love, one which I think rkr1958 has put the best effort in ever. As to Warspites comment about learning things that could be wrong, broken, not fully functional, not implemented in the most straight forward way, or just a bug has to be the biggest hurdle to overcome.

Is this game A Bridge Too Far to deliver on the computer? I don't think so. I'd be more worried about that being the case if there wasn't someone so dedicated as Steve seems to be. I'm not speaking to how it should be, I'm talking about the reality of the situation now. He plugs away and I hope that one day the game will be where everyone wants it to be. I haven't seen anything in any of his postings that leads me to believe that it will be abandoned. I certainly hope it won't anyways.

People always say that ASL would be impossible to ever code. Personally, I think WiF is a much larger task.

The thing that would murder coding ASL is the Special Rules in scenarios. I once started doing up a preliminary design for a computer ASL, as a thought exercise, and realized that it would take a fairly robust rules engine to handle all the "exception to the rule" that those bring to the table. The rest of the game was fairly straightforward stuff, even including the maps and whatnot, because of its relatively generic nature. Truthfully, I think that if ASL were coded as designed, it would be excruciatingly tedious to play, which is probably why there's never been a true translation of the game to the PC. From what I've read with the AARs, WiF seems to be enhanced by hitting the PC, not diminished by it, even with the current state of the game.

Didnt mean to take the thread this way. But yeah. I agree about the special scenario rules. I hadn't thought of that.

The thread is fine Reb but if Steve is having all these problems with the general rules what makes anyone here think that he can implement the special scenario rules. Not being snarky just being a realist.

Bo

[Missouri_Rebel]

Because there are only a few scenarios and most of the scenario rules have to do with the conditions at the time of the scenario whereas ASL has hundreds of scenarios with many having very specific and often quite peculiar conditions.

Im not sure what the current state of entry options are, but they are the biggest variables in the wif scenarios imo.