Option 47

[CrusssDaddy]

There's nothing I can say to you that you haven't already heard, from me and many others, not sure why you're asking for a recap. To the immediate issue at hand, the only thing stopping Steve from doing paying customers a solid and releasing debug to them is his own stubbornness, his own lack of insight into their frustrations and his own insistence to not ever deviate from his own deeply flawed plan. It is absolutely, absolutely, absolutely absurd to pretend that letting paying customers have debug would impede further development or repairs. Absolutely absurd, and if he actually honestly believes that's the case, then he is aggressively incompetent and should be shamed by everyone here.

[CrusssDaddy]

Also, there's no need to invoke Matrix's name any longer with regard to this game. Their involvement, other than to process sporadic payments, has ended.

[Joseignacio]

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99


27.43 Unsupplied units are eliminated if still unsupplied at the end of their player turn. This is so even if they were in supply at some intermediate point of their turn. Elimination occurs at the end of the player turn, units are lost after unit construction; therefore units lost from lack of supply cannot be reconstructed during the turn of their loss.

Pathetic. I would NEVER buy a game like this. In fact, I have unfortunately played some boardgames like this and I regret having done it. Of course, never bought a copy of them.

[Joseignacio]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

ORIGINAL: warspite1

warspite1

Well it would be helpful if you stated how long each player turn was and what each turn involved

3R had three month quarterly turns vs WIF with two month turns. Close enough. 3R also had options for air resupply. The premise for unit elimination at the end of the player turn, with opportunities during the impulses to resupply units that started the player turn unsupplied, is a valid enough concept for grand strategy games like this. Keep it simple.

warspite1

With air supply possible that at least makes some sense from an historical perspective.

As to validity, if you believe the concept valid then fine, and so is Option 47 BUT SO TOO is ADG's stock rule. The point is we all have rules we do not like or do not agree with. We put up with them or - if not acceptable - we move on.

Zorachus beef I thought was Option 47 not being coded - but he now seems to want unit removal if out of supply judging by his last post. Make your mind up......

Yep, that would help... a tiny little.

[rkr1958]

I think elimination in Avalon Hill's 3rd Reich means something different than destruction in MWiF. I think elimination in AH's 3rd Reich is a mixture of being shattered, retreated and destroyed in MWiF. For example, the Soviets in 1941-1942 got (if I remember correctly) approximately 150 BRPs per year. They could spend 1/2 of those in any one 3-month turn. 3-3 infantry corps cost 3 BRPs each and 4-5 armor corps 8 BRPs. So, for example, if the Soviets lost 9 infantry and 4 armor corps in a given turn then they could immediately replace those losses for 59 BRPs and have 16 BRPs left over (e.g., for an offensive option costing 15 BRPs).

Now if the Germans had cut off and put out of supply this same force and the Soviets couldn't get them back in supply by the end of the turn, then the Soviets still lose them but can't replace them until next turn. That is, builds are made before out of supply units are eliminate (e.g., removed from the board and placed back into the force pool). For me this is akin to out of supply units not being able to move without becoming disorganized or even able to attack.

In MWiF in 1941 and 1942, how many turns would it take the Soviets to replace the destruction of 9 infantry and 4 armor corps? So, loss of units represents different things in those two games so I think one is comparing apples to oranges when talking about the similarities (or dissimilarities) between the two games with respect to out of supply units.

[bo]

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

I think elimination in Avalon Hill's 3rd Reich means something different than destruction in MWiF. I think elimination in AH's 3rd Reich is a mixture of being shattered, retreated and destroyed in MWiF. For example, the Soviets in 1941-1942 got (if I remember correctly) approximately 150 BRPs per year. They could spend 1/2 of those in any one 3-month turn. 3-3 infantry corps cost 3 BRPs each and 4-5 armor corps 8 BRPs. So, for example, if the Soviets lost 9 infantry and 4 armor corps in a given turn then they could immediately replace those losses for 59 BRPs and have 16 BRPs left over (e.g., for an offensive option costing 15 BRPs).

Now if the Germans had cut off and put out of supply this same force and the Soviets couldn't get them back in supply by the end of the turn, then the Soviets still lose them but can't replace them until next turn. That is, builds are made before out of supply units are eliminate (e.g., removed from the board and placed back into the force pool). For me this is akin to out of supply units not being able to move without becoming disorganized or even able to attack.

In MWiF in 1941 and 1942, how many turns would it take the Soviets to replace the destruction of 9 infantry and 4 armor corps? So, loss of units represents different things in those two games so I think one is comparing apples to oranges when talking about the similarities (or dissimilarities) between the two games with respect to out of supply units.

Hi rkr, I just downloaded 3RD Reich and have started playing it, it has been quite awhile since I played it last and I am very rusty at it as I bemoan the fact that the allies are kicking my butt early on [:(] I do agree with your assessment above though.

Bo

[Centuur]

ORIGINAL: rkr1958

I think elimination in Avalon Hill's 3rd Reich means something different than destruction in MWiF. I think elimination in AH's 3rd Reich is a mixture of being shattered, retreated and destroyed in MWiF. For example, the Soviets in 1941-1942 got (if I remember correctly) approximately 150 BRPs per year. They could spend 1/2 of those in any one 3-month turn. 3-3 infantry corps cost 3 BRPs each and 4-5 armor corps 8 BRPs. So, for example, if the Soviets lost 9 infantry and 4 armor corps in a given turn then they could immediately replace those losses for 59 BRPs and have 16 BRPs left over (e.g., for an offensive option costing 15 BRPs).

Now if the Germans had cut off and put out of supply this same force and the Soviets couldn't get them back in supply by the end of the turn, then the Soviets still lose them but can't replace them until next turn. That is, builds are made before out of supply units are eliminate (e.g., removed from the board and placed back into the force pool). For me this is akin to out of supply units not being able to move without becoming disorganized or even able to attack.

In MWiF in 1941 and 1942, how many turns would it take the Soviets to replace the destruction of 9 infantry and 4 armor corps? So, loss of units represents different things in those two games so I think one is comparing apples to oranges when talking about the similarities (or dissimilarities) between the two games with respect to out of supply units.

+1

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Numdydar
I just do not understand why people expect perfection for $100...Personally I think that is a very unrealistic expectation.
***
I understand you are unhappy with the product. So what would your solution be so that the people involved could make money and provide the product you wanted? Remembering the limited number of buyers for a game like this.

You're seriously accusing people of complaining about "perfection" for a game with no AI, no NetPlay, no half-map scenarios, and still bugs being squashed?!? Given that all of these things were announced as being part of the game after release, why on earth would that expectation be unrealistic?

My solution is very simple--if a program is released in beta form, it is advertised as such, so that people who want to spend their money supporting their favorite game can do so, and everyone expecting a finished game can take a pass. That was most emphatically not done with this game. Or Kickstarter has been suggested many times.

I don't know how many other games ADG makes, but I'll certainly never buy a computer version again--I wanted to buy EiA, but that was an even bigger debacle than WiF--no mas!

[bo]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

ORIGINAL: Numdydar
I just do not understand why people expect perfection for $100...Personally I think that is a very unrealistic expectation.
***
I understand you are unhappy with the product. So what would your solution be so that the people involved could make money and provide the product you wanted? Remembering the limited number of buyers for a game like this.

You're seriously accusing people of complaining about "perfection" for a game with no AI, no NetPlay, no half-map scenarios, and still bugs being squashed?!? Given that all of these things were announced as being part of the game after release, why on earth would that expectation be unrealistic?

My solution is very simple--would be that if a program is released in beta form, it is advertised as such, so that people who want to spend their money supporting their favorite game can do so, and everyone expecting a finished game can take a pass. Or Kickstarter has been suggested many times.

I don't know how many other games ADG makes, but I'll certainly never buy a computer version again--I wanted to buy EiA, but that was an even bigger debacle than WiF--no mas!

Hi 76mm:

I'm a clam [:(] well not really I would love to speak my mind but I do not want to lose my "Matrix Legion of Merit" rank[;)]

Bo

[Centuur]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

ORIGINAL: Numdydar
I just do not understand why people expect perfection for $100...Personally I think that is a very unrealistic expectation.
***
I understand you are unhappy with the product. So what would your solution be so that the people involved could make money and provide the product you wanted? Remembering the limited number of buyers for a game like this.

You're seriously accusing people of complaining about "perfection" for a game with no AI, no NetPlay, no half-map scenarios, and still bugs being squashed?!? Given that all of these things were announced as being part of the game after release, why on earth would that expectation be unrealistic?

My solution is very simple--if a program is released in beta form, it is advertised as such, so that people who want to spend their money supporting their favorite game can do so, and everyone expecting a finished game can take a pass. That was most emphatically not done with this game. Or Kickstarter has been suggested many times.

I don't know how many other games ADG makes, but I'll certainly never buy a computer version again--I wanted to buy EiA, but that was an even bigger debacle than WiF--no mas!

I agree totally with you, except from the part of Netplay and AI. That was announced as not being in the release, together with a number of optional rules not being available.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Centuur
I agree totally with you, except from the part of Netplay and AI. That was announced as not being in the release, together with a number of optional rules not being available.

Just to clarify, I know that they were not "in the release", but they were announced as coming soon after relase (net play) or within a year or two (AI); that's why I said that they were "announced as being part of the game after release". Instead, 18 months after release they're still squashing bugs, with a very limited NetPlay roll out and nothing else this side of the horizon.

[bo]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

ORIGINAL: Centuur
I agree totally with you, except from the part of Netplay and AI. That was announced as not being in the release, together with a number of optional rules not being available.

Just to clarify, I know that they were not "in the release", but they were announced as coming soon after relase (net play) or within a year or two (AI); that's why I said that they were "announced as being part of the game after release". Instead, 18 months after release they're still squashing bugs, with a very limited NetPlay roll out and nothing else this side of the horizon.

I'm still a clam [:(]

Bo

[Joseignacio]

[:)][:)][:)]

[juntoalmar]

I agree with 76mm that we all were expecting MWiF to move forward faster. I don't think Matrix or Steve have been dishonest. They didn't think it would take so long to fix the bugs after the initial release. It may have been a miscalculation... I don't know how many bugs they found before releasing the game, but probably they have spread exponentially.

PS. Still, I'm very very happy that I bought it.

[bo]

ORIGINAL: Joseignacio



[:)][:)][:)]

Oh no you don't Jose the clam is my idea not yours [:D] No really thank you for the picture, now if we can just get Bo to open his shell [:(] Hmmmmm!

Bo

[Centuur]

ORIGINAL: juntoalmar

I agree with 76mm that we all were expecting MWiF to move forward faster. I don't think Matrix or Steve have been dishonest. They didn't think it would take so long to fix the bugs after the initial release. It may have been a miscalculation... I don't know how many bugs they found before releasing the game, but probably they have spread exponentially.

PS. Still, I'm very very happy that I bought it.

Let me put it this way. We are still finding bugs we and all other guys around didn't notice before. The problem with this game is that the combination of optional rules used, together with the different unit capabilities, weather effects, map, etc., etc., etc. makes it impossible to test everything.

After release, the number of bugs reported exploded. Can a test team of a dozen guys find everything there is in a game of this multitude? Answer: no!

Did we have a chance of getting most bugs out of the game without involving more people? I'm not totally sure, but I'm slowly admitting that the answer to this question is "no" too, which than comes back to the fact that I'm slowly starting to believe that the only way to get this game right is to put it on the market in the condition it was in at release. Which is quite shocking, since that means that Matrix should have put it in as a public beta in the advertisements IMHO.

Might things have gone different when we would have postponed release for another year? I don't think so too, if I look back at what has happened after release. The number of bugs exploded and there were an awful lot of those in the game, which the beta team never catched before, because of those large number of possibilities in it.

A miscalculation? I can't answer that question, since I haven't got a clue what was expected to happen after release.

Steve is still fixing bugs in all kind of area's. It sometimes looks a little like a multiheaded monster. You chop one off and another head appears. However, progress is slowly made, but sometimes regression bugs appear which than have to be killed first, before another patch can be put in as public beta. That is really depressing for us testers to see happening, especially since it takes time to put things back in good order, without having the initial bug reappearing again. I imagine that Steve isn't happy with those things at all.

An example from this week. Steve corrected two bugs regarding the problems reported on supply in Finland involving Mannerheim (together with a couple of other bugs). In the gamesaves he has been using to tackle these bugs, he doesn't see anything wrong anymore. So we start hammering on the test version (that's why we are there) he gave us and suddenly, all minor country units outside of their home countries in coastal hexes only are incorrectly stated to be out of supply.... That's a bummer, I believe they say overseas... [8|]

To be honest, at times this is soo frustrating and one wants to blow off steam and start shouting and use abusive language, you know....
However, that's counterproductive... [&o]

So there is only one answer possible: "Carry on, soldier"...

[Joseignacio]

[bo]

ORIGINAL: Joseignacio

I am terrified to think what the next picture might be Jose [:D] I do happen to like Sponge Bob though. [;)]

Bo

[Centuur]

ORIGINAL: bo

ORIGINAL: Joseignacio

I am terrified to think what the next picture might be Jose [:D] I do happen to like Sponge Bob though. [;)]

Bo

Me to. It's really well made for both children and adults, since it has all kind of nice jokes in it.

[bo]

ORIGINAL: Centuur

ORIGINAL: bo

ORIGINAL: Joseignacio

I am terrified to think what the next picture might be Jose [:D] I do happen to like Sponge Bob though. [;)]

Bo

Me to. It's really well made for both children and adults, since it has all kind of nice jokes in it.

Sponge Bob in Dutch would be? Herr something [;)]

Bo